STRUCTURAL POLICY CORRUPTION IN ARCHITECTURAL PROCUREMENT: EVIDENCE OF TOR MANIPULATION IN THAILAND

Kajohnsak  Chaokromthong

doi:10.14456/apsr.2026.3

Authors

Kajohnsak CHAOKROMTHONG Faculty of Architecture, Kasem Bundit University, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14456/apsr.2026.3

Keywords:

Policy Corruption, Public Procurement, Terms of Reference, Architectural Design, Governance Reform

Abstract

This study investigates structural policy corruption within public architectural procurement in Thailand, focusing on the strategic manipulation of Terms of Reference (TOR). Moving beyond transactional bribery, it conceptualizes TOR formulation as an institutionalized mechanism that deliberately distorts transparency, professional accountability, and fair competition. Using a qualitative case study approach, the study collected data through fifteen interviews and extensive document analysis, guided by the Governance, Risk, and Compliance framework and the COSO Enterprise Risk Management model. The empirical findings reveal four pervasive mechanisms of TOR manipulation: restrictive eligibility criteria, opaque cost estimation practices, superficial public consultation, and the systematic exclusion of independent architectural professionals. These structural vulnerabilities severely compromise design quality and erode public trust, mirroring broader procurement governance challenges across Asian nations. To mitigate these systemic issues, the research strongly advocates for comprehensive governance reforms. Key recommendations include establishing independent TOR review mechanisms, deploying digital procurement platforms, and expanding the regulatory mandate of professional architectural councils to enhance overall transparency and long-term public accountability in future national infrastructure development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Kajohnsak CHAOKROMTHONG, Faculty of Architecture, Kasem Bundit University, Thailand

This study investigates structural policy corruption within public architectural procurement in Thailand, focusing on the strategic manipulation of Terms of Reference (TOR). Moving beyond transactional bribery, it conceptualizes TOR formulation as an institutionalized mechanism that deliberately distorts transparency, professional accountability, and fair competition. Using a qualitative case study approach, the study collected data through fifteen interviews and extensive document analysis, guided by the Governance, Risk, and Compliance framework and the COSO Enterprise Risk Management model. The empirical findings reveal four pervasive mechanisms of TOR manipulation: restrictive eligibility criteria, opaque cost estimation practices, superficial public consultation, and the systematic exclusion of independent architectural professionals. These structural vulnerabilities severely compromise design quality and erode public trust, mirroring broader procurement governance challenges across Asian nations. To mitigate these systemic issues, the research strongly advocates for comprehensive governance reforms. Key recommendations include establishing independent TOR review mechanisms, deploying digital procurement platforms, and expanding the regulatory mandate of professional architectural councils to enhance overall transparency and long-term public accountability in future national infrastructure development.

References

Alsamarraie, M., & Ghazali, F. (2023). Barriers and Challenges for Public Procurement Integrity in Iraq: Systematic Review Study. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 27(9), 3633-3645.

Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G. (2010). The organizational dynamics of enterprise risk management. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(7), 659-675.

Avianti, I., & Handoyo, S. (2025). A bibliometric analysis of governance, risk, and compliance (GRC): Trends, themes, and future directions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 1945.

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.

Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.

Chan, A., & Owusu, E. (2017). Corruption forms in the construction industry: Literature review. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(8). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001353.

Datta, A. (2015). New urban utopias of postcolonial India: ‘Entrepreneurial urbanization’ in Dholera smart city, Gujarat: ‘Entrepreneurial urbanization’ in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), 3-22.

Doloi, H. (2011). Understanding stakeholders’ perspective of cost estimation in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 622-636.

Ferwerda, J., Deleanu, I., & Unger, B. (2017). Corruption in public procurement: Finding the right indicators. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23, 245-267.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.

Gong, T., & Zhou, N. (2015). Corruption and marketization: Formal and informal rules in Chinese public procurement. Regulation & Governance, 9(1), 63-76.

Khorana, S., Caram, S., & Rana, N. (2024). Measuring public procurement transparency with an index: Exploring the role of e-GP systems and institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), 101952.

Khoury, K. (2021). Ethics in architecture responsibilities and moral decisions in sustainable design. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 1(12), 41-53.

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.

Osborne, S. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation?. Public Management Review, 20(2), 225-231.

Owusu, E., Chan, A., DeGraft, O., Ameyaw, E., & Robert, O. (2019). Contemporary Review of Anti-Corruption Measures in Construction Project Management. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 40-56.

Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail—Systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449-471.

Pinto, J. (2023). Is this How Big Things Get Done?. International Journal of Project Management, 41(5), 102484.

Prasad, D., Alizadeh, T., & Dowling, R. (2024). Smart city planning and the challenges of informality in India. Dialogues in Human Geography, 14(3), 385-402.

Prewett, K., & Terry, A. (2018). COSO's Updated Enterprise Risk Management Framework—A Quest for Depth and Clarity. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 29(3), 16-23.

Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1993). Corruption. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 599-617.

Suardi, I., Rossieta, H., Djakman, C., & Diyanty, V. (2024). Procurement governance in reducing corruption in the Indonesian public sector: A mixed-method approach. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2393744.

Too, E., & Weaver, P. (2014). The Management of Project Management: A Conceptual Framework for Project Governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1382-1394.