Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:10:00.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Approach to the Evaluation of Public Procurement Efficiency among European Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Milos Milosavljević ,
Marina Dobrota  and
Nemanja Milanović
Milos Milosavljević
Affiliation:
Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilica 154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Email: [email protected]
Marina Dobrota
Affiliation:
Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilica 154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Email: [email protected]
Nemanja Milanović
Affiliation:
Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilica 154, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public procurements have been high on the agenda of policy makers, decision makers, scholars, and other interested parties in Europe in the last few decades, as such procurements make up nearly one-fifth of Europe’s total gross domestic product. Nevertheless, not many attempts have been made to measure the efficiency of public procurement systems and accordingly rank European countries. The most important measurement that highlights this issue is the Single Market Scoreboard for Public Procurements. However, this scoreboard is subject to bias and numerous omissions, which significantly decreases its operational usage and deteriorates the real efficiency of public procurements. This article aims to rank European countries in an unambiguous, objective, and impartial manner by using the Composite I-distance Indicator (CIDI) methodology. Instead of using biased weights for individual indicators, assigned by experts, the CIDI method creates new weights in an objective manner. The study analysed 30 European countries. The results of the study are, to some extent, different from current practice for public procurement efficiency measurement. The novel approach to ranking provides an opportunity to interested parties to improve the performance of their public procurements by reviewing them on a multidimensional basis.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 246 - 259
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. European Commission (2014) sAnnual Public Procurement Implementation Review 2013 (Brussels: Commission Staff Working Document), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/implementation/20140820-staff-working-document_en.pdf (accessed 6 July 2016).Google Scholar
2. Bovaird, T. (2006) Developing new forms of partnership with the ‘market’ in the procurement of public services. Public Administration, 84(1), pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
3. Decarolis, F. (2009) When the highest bidder loses the auction: Theory and evidence from public procurement. Bank of Italy Temi di Discussione (Working Paper) No. 717.10.2139/ssrn.1523216Google Scholar
4. Jovanovic, P., Joksimovic, N.Z. and Milosavljević, M. (2013) The efficiency of public procurement centralization: empirical evidence from Serbian local self-governments. Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 11(4), p. 883.10.4335/11.4.883-899(2013)Google Scholar
5. European Commission (2015) The EU Single Market: Single Market Scoreboard, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_per_policy_area/public_procurement/index_en.htm (accessed 1 July 2016).Google Scholar
6. Chabova, K. (2016) Measuring corruption in Europe: Public opinion surveys and composite indices. Quality and Quantity, 1–24. doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0372-8Google Scholar
7. Dobrota, M., Martic, M., Bulajic, M. and Jeremic, V. (2015) Two-phased composite I-distance indicator approach for evaluation of countries’ information development. Telecommunications Policy, 39, pp. 406–420.Google Scholar
8. Murphy, R. and Weinhardt, F. (2013) The Importance of Rank Position. Centre for Economic Performance. Discussion paper no. CEPDP1241 available at http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1241.pdf (accessed 22 June 2016).Google Scholar
9. Maricic, M. and Kostic-Stankovic, M. (2016) Towards an impartial Responsible Competitiveness Index: A twofold multivariate I-distance approach. Quality and Quantity, 50, pp. 103–120.10.1007/s11135-014-0139-zGoogle Scholar
10. Dobrota, M., Bulajic, M., Bornmann, L. and Jeremic, V. (2016) A new approach to the QS university ranking using the composite I-distance indicator: Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, pp. 200–211.10.1002/asi.23355Google Scholar
11. Hessami, Z. (2014) Political corruption, public procurement, and budget composition: Theory and evidence from OECD countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 34, pp. 372–389.Google Scholar
12. Pîrvu, D. and Bâldan, C. (2013) Access to the EU public procurement market: Are there disparities based on the origin of economic operators? Journal of Economic Issues, 47(3), pp. 765–780.10.2753/JEI0021-3624470309Google Scholar
13. Brianzoni, S., Coppier, R. and Michetti, E. (2015) Multiple equilibria in a discrete time growth model with corruption in public procurement. Quality and Quantity, 49(6), pp. 2387–2410.10.1007/s11135-014-0119-3Google Scholar
14. Arrowsmith, S (2005) The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement (London: Sweet and Maxwell).Google Scholar
15. Allen, R and Tommasi, D (2001) Managing Public Expenditure: A Reference Book for Transition Countries (Paris: OECD Publication).Google Scholar
16. Bovis, C.H. (2013) The challenges of public procurement reform in the single market of the European Union. ERA Forum, 14(1), pp. 35–57.Google Scholar
17. Sanchez-Graells, A. (2011) Public Procurement and the EU Competition Rules (Oxford: Hart Publishing).Google Scholar
18. Peck, F. and Cabras, I. (2011) The impact of local authority procurement on local economies: the case of Cumbria, North West England. Public Policy and Administration, 26(3), pp. 307–331.10.1177/0952076709356859Google Scholar
19. Edler, J. and Georghiou, L. (2007) Public procurement and innovation—resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36(7), pp. 949–963.10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.003Google Scholar
20. Rolfstam, M. (2009) Public procurement as an innovation policy tool: The role of institutions. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), pp. 349–360.10.3152/030234209X442025Google Scholar
21. Edquist, C. and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M. (2012) Public procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(10), pp. 1757–1769.10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.022Google Scholar
22. Vecchiato, R. and Roveda, C. (2014) Foresight for public procurement and regional innovation policy: The case of Lombardy. Research Policy, 43(2), pp. 438–450.10.1016/j.respol.2013.11.003Google Scholar
23. Uttam, K. and Roos, C.L.L. (2015) Competitive dialogue procedure for sustainable public procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, pp. 403–416.10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.031Google Scholar
24. Van Long, N. and Stähler, F. (2009) A contest model of liberalizing government procurements. European Journal of Political Economy, 25(4), pp. 479–488.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2009.02.003Google Scholar
25. Schulten, T., Alsos, K., Burgess, P. and Pedersen, K. (2012) Pay and Other Social Clauses in European Public Procurement. An Overview on Regulation and Practices with a Focus on Denmark, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Study on behalf of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
26. Ayhan, B. and Üstüner, Y. (2015) Governance in public procurement: The reform of Turkey’s public procurement system. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 002085231454815310.1177/0020852314548153Google Scholar
27. Mukhopadhyay, B. (2011) Evaluating public procurement. Review of Market Integration, 3(1), pp. 21–68.10.1177/097492921100300103Google Scholar
28. Tadelis, S. (2012) Public procurement design: Lessons from the private sector. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 30(3), pp. 297–302.10.1016/j.ijindorg.2012.02.002Google Scholar
29. Caldwell, N., Walker, H., Harland, C., Knight, L., Zheng, J. and Wakeley, T. (2005) Promoting competitive markets: The role of public procurement. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 11(5), pp. 242–251.10.1016/j.pursup.2005.12.002Google Scholar
30. Cox, A. and Furlong, P. (1997) Cross-border trade and contract awards: The intellectual myopia at the heart of the EU procurement rules. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(1), pp. 9–20.Google Scholar
31. Bergman, M.A. and Lundberg, S. (2013) Tender evaluation and supplier selection methods in public procurement. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(2), pp. 73–83.10.1016/j.pursup.2013.02.003Google Scholar
32. Verdeaux, J.J. (2003) Public procurement in the European Union and in the United States: a comparative study. Public Contract Law Journal, pp. 713–738.Google Scholar
33. Bajari, P. and Lewis, G. (2009) Procurement Contracting with Time Incentives: Theory and Evidence (No. w14855). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
34. Sonnino, R. (2009) Quality food, public procurement, and sustainable development: The school meal revolution in Rome. Environment and Planning A, 41(2), pp. 425–440.10.1068/a40112Google Scholar
35. Evenett, S.J. and Hoekman, B.M. (2005) Government procurement: Market access, transparency, and multilateral trade rules. European Journal of Political Economy, 21(1), pp. 163–183.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2004.01.001Google Scholar
36. Lennerfors, T.T. (2007) The transformation of transparency – on the act on public procurement and the right to appeal in the context of the war on corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), pp. 381–390.10.1007/s10551-006-9213-3Google Scholar
37. Strand, I., Ramada, P., Canton, E., Muller, P., Devnani, S., Bas, P.D. and Dvergsdal, K. (2011) Public Procurement in Europe - Cost and Effectiveness (Brussels: PwC, London Economics and Ecorys).Google Scholar
38. Milosavljević, M., Milanović, N. and Benkovic, S. (2016) Politics, policies and public procurement efficiency: A quantitative study of 25 European countries, Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government, 14(3), doi 10.4335/14.3.539-560(2016).Google Scholar
39. Išljamović, S., Jeremić, V., Petrović, N. and Radojičić, Z. (2015) Colouring the socio-economic development into green: I-distance framework for countries’ welfare evaluation. Quality & Quantity, 49, pp. 617–629.Google Scholar
40. Ivanović, B. (1977) Teorija klasifkacije (Belgrade: Institut za ekonomiku industrije).Google Scholar
41. Jeremic, V., Bulajic, M., Martic, M. and Radojicic, Z. (2011) A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics. 87, pp. 587–596.Google Scholar
42. Zornic, N., Bornmann, L., Maricic, M., Markovic, A., Martic, M. and Jeremic, V. (2015) Ranking institutions within a university based on their scientific performance: A percentile-based approach. El Profesional de La Información, 24, 551.10.3145/epi.2015.sep.05Google Scholar
43. Dobrota, M. and Dobrota, M. (2016) ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity: What if the award factor was Excluded? Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, pp. 480–482.10.1002/asi.23527Google Scholar
44. Dobrota, M. and Jeremic, V. (2016) Shedding the light on the stability of university rankings in the ICT field. IETE Technical Review, 1–8.Google Scholar
45. Dobrota, M., Jeremic, V. and Markovic, A. (2012) A new perspective on the ICT Development Index. Information Development, 28, pp. 271–280.10.1177/0266666912446497Google Scholar
46. Jeremic, V., Bulajic, M., Martic, M., Markovic, A., Savic, G., Jeremic, D. and Radojicic, Z. (2012) An evaluation of European countries health systems through distance based analysis. Hippokratia, 16, pp. 175–179.Google Scholar
47. Jeremić, V., Jovanović-Milenković, M., Radojičić, Z. and Martić, M. (2013) Excellence with leadership: The crown indicator of Scimago Institutions Rankings Iber report. El Profesional de La Información, 22, pp. 474–480.10.3145/epi.2013.sep.13Google Scholar
48. Seke, K., Petrovic, N., Jeremic, V., Vukmirovic, J., Kilibarda, B. and Martic, M. (2013) Sustainable development and public health: Rating European countries. BMC Public Health, 13, p. 77.Google Scholar
49. Ivanovic, B. (1973) A method of Establishing a List of Development Indicators (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).Google Scholar
50. Ivanovic, B. and Fanchette, S. (1973) Grouping and Ranking of 30 Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, Two Distance-based Methods Compared (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).Google Scholar
51. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A. and Giovannini, E. (2008) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide (Paris: OECD, Joint Research Centre-European Commission).Google Scholar
52. Grødeland, Å.B. and Aasland, A. (2011) Fighting corruption in public procurement in post-communist states: Obstacles and solutions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44(1), pp. 17–32.10.1016/j.postcomstud.2011.01.004Google Scholar
53. Resh, W.G. and Marvel, J.D. (2012) Loopholes to load-shed: Contract management capacity, representative bureaucracy, and goal displacement in Federal procurement decisions. International Public Management Journal, 15(4), pp. 525–547.Google Scholar
54. Patrucco, A.S., Luzzini, D. and Ronchi, S. (2016) Evaluating the effectiveness of public procurement performance management systems in local governments. Local Government Studies, 42(5), 739–761.10.1080/03003930.2016.1181059Google Scholar
55. Thai, K.V. (2001) Public procurement re-examined. Journal of Public Procurement, 1(1), pp. 9–50.10.1108/JOPP-01-01-2001-B001Google Scholar
56. Søreide, T. (2002) Corruption in Public Procurement - Causes, Consequences and Cures (Norway: Chr. Michelsen Institute).Google Scholar
57. Dastidar, K.G. and Mukherjee, D. (2014) Corruption in delegated public procurement auctions. European Journal of Political Economy, 35, pp. 122–127.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.05.003Google Scholar
58. Auriol, E. (2006) Corruption in procurement and public purchase. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(5), pp. 867–885.10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.11.001Google Scholar
59. Dalen, D.M., Moen, E.R. and Riis, C. (2006) Contract renewal and incentives in public procurement. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), pp. 269–285.10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.04.004Google Scholar
60. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A. and Tarantola, S. (2005) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 168, pp. 307–323.10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00350.xGoogle Scholar
61. Saisana, M. and D’Hombres, B. (2008) Higher Education Rankings: Robustness Issues and Critical Assessment. How much Confidence can we have in Higher Education Rankings? (Ispra, Italy: EUR23487, Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of the European Union). doi: 10.2788/92295Google Scholar
62. Saisana, M., d’Hombres, B. and Saltelli, A. (2011) Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy, 40, 165–177.10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.003Google Scholar