Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T18:25:11.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the WTO Government Procurement Agreement Deliver What It Promises?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2018

BEDRI KAMIL ONUR TAŞ ,
KAMALA DAWAR ,
PETER HOLMES  and
SÜBIDEY TOGAN
BEDRI KAMIL ONUR TAŞ*
Affiliation:
TOBB ETU, Ankara, Turkey
KAMALA DAWAR*
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
PETER HOLMES*
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
SÜBIDEY TOGAN*
Affiliation:
Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
*
*Email: [email protected] (corresponding author)
**Email: [email protected]
***Email: [email protected]
†Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the impact of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) on government procurement practices in the European Union (EU). We analyse empirically whether the WTO GPA is effective in promoting non-discriminatory, open, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective government procurement. To study this question, we use a unique data set recently released by the EU, covering more than three million tenders conducted in the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and Macedonia during the years 2006–2016. We find that the WTO GPA promotes competition by increasing the probability of awarding a contract to a foreign firm. In addition, the WTO GPA significantly lowers corruption risk by decreasing the number of contracts with single bidders, and by decreasing total number of wins by a single firm. Finally, the WTO GPA fosters cost-effective public procurement by lowering the probability that the procurement price is higher than estimated cost.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 609 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Bedri Kamil Onur Taş et al. 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.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank L. Alan Winters and two anonymous referees for suggestions that significantly improved the paper. We thank Sergio Alessandrini and Bernard Hoekman for valuable comments, and acknowledge gratefully the financial support from Forum Euromediterranéen des Instituts Sciences Economiques (FEMISE), supported by the European Commission. The views expressed in the paper, however, do not necessarily represent the official position of the Commission nor that of FEMISE.

References

Bajari, P. and Hortacsu, A. (2003), ‘The Winner's Curse, Reserve Prices, and Endogenous Entry: Empirical Insights from eBay Auctions’, RAND Journal of Economics, 34: 329–355.Google Scholar
Billor, N., Hadi, A. S., and Velleman, P. F. (2000), ‘BACON: Blocked Adaptive Computationally Efficient Outlier Nominators’, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 34: 279–298.Google Scholar
Conley, T. G. and Decarolis, F. (2016), ‘Detecting Bidders Groups in Collusive Auctions’, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 8(2): 1–38.Google Scholar
Estache, A. and Iimi, A. (2010), ‘Bidder Asymmetry in Infrastructure Procurement: Are There any Fringe Bidders?’, Review of Industrial Organization, 36: 168–187.Google Scholar
Fazekas, M., Chvalkovska, J., Skuhrovec, J., Tóth, I. J., and King, L. P. (2014), ‘Are EU funds a Corruption Risk? The Impact of EU Funds on Grand Corruption in Central and Eastern Europe’, in Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (ed.), The Anticorruption Frontline: The ANTICORRP Project, vol. II, Berlin: Barbara Budrich Publishers, pp. 68–89.Google Scholar
Fronk, J. (2015), ‘International Agreements on Trade in Government Procurement: Formation and Effect’, Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Gourdon, J. and Messent, J. (2017), ‘Emerging Policy Issues: Measures Affecting Trade in Government Procurement Process’, Trade and Agricultural Directorate Trade Committee Working Party of the Trade Committee (TAD/TC/WP (2015)26/FINAL, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Ishii, R. (2009), ‘Favor Exchange in Collusion: Empirical Study of Repeated Procurement Auctions in Japan’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27: 137–144.Google Scholar
Kutlina-Dimitrova, Z. and Lakatos, C. (2016), ‘Determinants of Direct Cross-border Public Procurement in EU Member States’, Review of World Economy, 152: 501–528.Google Scholar
Lewbel, A. (2012), ‘Using Heteroscedasticity to Identify and Estimate Mismeasured and Endogenous Regressor Models’, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 30: 67–80.Google Scholar
Lewbel, A. (2018), ‘Identification and Estimation Using Heteroscedasticity Without Instruments: The Binary Endogenous Regressor Case,’ Economics Letters, 165: 10–12.Google Scholar
OECD (2012), ‘Guidelines for Fighting Bid Rigging in Public Procurement: Helping Governments to Obtain Best Value for Money’, www.oecd.org/competition/cartels/42851044.pdf.Google Scholar
Ohashi, H. (2009), ‘Effects of Transparency in Procurement Practices on Government Expenditure: A Case Study of Municipal Public Works’, Review of Industrial Organization, 34(3): 267–285.Google Scholar
Onur, I., Ozcan, R., and Tas, B. K. O. (2012), ‘Public Procurement Auctions and Competition in Turkey’, Review of Industrial Organization, 40: 207–223.Google Scholar
Richard, S. J. and Kono, D. Y. (2014), ‘Think Globally, Buy Locally: International Agreements and Government Procurement’, The Review of International Organizations, 9: 333–352.Google Scholar
Rigobon, R. and Sack, B. (2003), ‘Measuring the Reaction of Monetary Policy to the Stock Market’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118: 639–669.Google Scholar
Shingal, A. (2011), ‘Services Procurement under the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement: Whither Market Access?’, World Trade Review, 10: 527–549.Google Scholar
Shingal, A. (2015), ‘Econometric Analyses of Home Bias in Government Procurement’, Review of International Economics, 23: 188–219.Google Scholar
Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) (2016), Notes and Codebook, https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/ted-csv.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Onur Taş et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Onur Taş et al. supplementary material(File)
File 87.7 KB