CORRUPTION IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AUCTIONS: POSITIVE EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS, INCENTIVE MECHANISM DESIGN, AND EMPIRICAL STUDY

We study how poor quality of institution, such as corruption in public procurement auction, could hurt welfare. We show how competition effect could improve the cost-efficiency but not the quality of a public procurement auction with corruption. In fact, no incentive mechanism can be efficient in this auction if qualities are non-contractible. An empirical study suggests that increasing the number of bidders does increase the percentage cost efficiency albeit at a decreasing rate and decreases the percentage cost efficiency after it reaches a certain number of bidders.Auctions, Procurement, Corruption

Legal Corruption

We challenge the conventional definition of corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain, making a distinction between legal and illegal forms of corruption, and paying more attention to corporate patterns of corruption (which also affect public corruption). We undertake to identify general determinants of the pattern of legal and illegal corruption worldwide, and present a model where both corruption (modeled explicitly in the context of allocations) and the political equilibrium are endogenous. Three types of equilibrium outcomes are identified as a function of basic parameters, namely initial conditions (assets/productivity), equality, and fundamental political accountability. These equilibria are: i) an illegal corruption equilibrium, where the political elite does not face binding incentives; ii) a legal corruption equilibrium, where the political elite is obliged to incur on a cost to deceive the population; and iii) a no-corruption equilibrium, where the population cannot be deceived. An integral empirical test of the model is performed, using a broad range of variables and sources. Its core variables, namely regarding legal corruption (and other manifestations of corporate corruption) come from an original survey developed with the World Economic Forum (in the Executive Opinion Survey 2004 of the Global Competitiveness Report). The empirical results generally validate the model and explanations. Some salient implications emerge.

Bid Rigging – An Analysis of Corruption in Auctions

In many auctions, the auctioneer is an agent of the seller. This invites corruption. We propose a model of corruption in which the auctioneer orchestrates bid rigging by inviting a bidder to either lower or raise his bid, whichever is more profitable. We characterize equilibrium bidding in first- and second-price auctions, show how corruption distorts the allocation, and why both the auctioneer and bidders may have a vested interest in maintaining corruption. Bid rigging is initiated by the auctioneer after bids have been submitted in order to minimize illegal contact and to realize the maximum gain from corruption.auctions, procurement, corruption, right of first refusal, numerical methods

Optimal procurement mechanism with observable quality

In a procurement contract the Administration usually has some prior information about the quality of the bidding firms. The goal of this article is to characterize the optimal mechanism in such a situation, when firms have private information about their costs. The optimal mechanism selects low-quality firms more often than it would be efficient with perfect information. We also compare this mechanism with others frequently used by the Spanish Administration such as the first price sealed bid auction and the previous admission auction

Innovation Contests with Entry Auction

We consider procurement of an innovation from heterogeneous sellers. Innovations are random but depend on unobservable effort and private information. We compare two procurement mechanisms where potential sellers first bid in an auction for admission to an innovation contest. After the contest, an innovation is procured employing either a fixed prize or a first-price auction. We characterize Bayesian Nash equilibria such that both mechanisms are payoff-equivalent and induce the same efforts and innovations. In these equilibria, signaling in the entry auction does not occur since contestants play a simple strategy that does not depend on rivals' private information

Bribery and Public Procurement - An Experimental Study

A procurement contract is granted by a bureaucrat (the auctioneer) who is interested in a low price and a bribe from the provider. The optimal bids and bribes are derived based on an iid private cost assumption. In the experiment, bribes are negatively framed (betweensubjects treatment) to capture that society is better off if bribes are rare or low. Although bids are lower than predicted, behavior is qualitatively in line with the linear equilibrium prediction. When bribes generate a negative externality, there is a significant increase in the variability of the data.Corruption, Procurement Auctions

Innovation Contests with Entry Auction

We consider procurement of an innovation from heterogeneous sellers. Innovations are random but depend on unobservable effort and private information. We compare two procurement mechanisms where potential sellers first bid in an auction for admission to an innovation contest. After the contest, an innovation is procured employing either a fixed prize or a first-price auction. We characterize Bayesian Nash equilibria such that both mechanisms are payoff-equivalent and induce the same efforts and innovations. In these equilibria, signaling in the entry auction does not occur since contestants play a simple strategy that does not depend on rivals' private information.Contest; Auction; Innovation; Research; R\&D; Procurement; Signaling

Optimal procurement mechanism with observable quality.

In a procurement contract the Administration usually has some prior information about the quality of the bidding firms. The goal of this article is to characterize the optimal mechanism in such a situation, when firms have private information about their costs. The optimal mechanism selects low-quality firms more often than it would be efficient with perfect information. We also compare this mechanism with others frequently used by the Spanish Administration such as the first price sealed bid auction and the previous admission auction.Procurement; Quality; Auctions; Optimal Mechanism;

The Mechanics of Collusion

the construction industry is according to the bribe Payers index from transParency international the most corruPt industry, well ahead of the defense sector. Corruption and collusion are closely interrelated in the public sector, they nurture each other. However, collusion does not depend on cor- ruption, it can thrive by itself. A basic question is whether collusion is mostly a moral or an institutional issue. Using the title “mechan- ics of collusion” and proving the implied automatic reactions clearly strengthens the argument for an institutional view. There is no free- dom of choice in mechanics and accordingly there are no moral issues. The predominant antecedents of the construction industry (sealed-bid auctions, competitive environment, large contract volumes) are setting incentives for collusive cooperation. Such a behavior can even be morally defended. Since it is illegal (while extant) in most countries, it can not be encouraged. However, it is worthwhile to discuss changes to the procurement process that will set incentives to discourage collusion

Procurement in infrastructure : what does theory tell us ?

Infrastructure has particular challenges in public procurement, because it is highly complex and customized and often requires economic, political and social considerations from a long time horizon. To deliver public infrastructure services to citizens or taxpayers, there are a series of decisions that governments have to make. The paper provides a minimum package of important economic theories that could guide governments to wise decision-making at each stage. Theory suggests that in general it would be a good option to contract out infrastructure to the private sector under high-powered incentive mechanisms, such as fixed-price contracts. However, this holds under certain conditions. Theory also shows that ownership should be aligned with the ultimate responsibility for or objective of infrastructure provision. Public and private ownership have different advantages and can deal with different problems. It is also shown that it would be a better option to integrate more than one public task (for example, investment and operation) into the same ownership, whether public or private, if they exhibit positive externalities.Public Sector Economics&Finance,Debt Markets,Infrastructure Economics,Contract Law,Transport Economics Policy&Planning