IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2302.05772.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Set-Asides in USDA Food Procurement Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Ni Yan
  • WenTing Tao

Abstract

We study the partial and full set-asides and their implication for changes in bidding behavior in first-price sealed-bid auctions in the context of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) food procurement auctions. Using five years of bid data on different beef products, we implement weighted least squares regression models to show that partial set-aside predicts decreases in both offer prices and winning prices among large and small business bidders. Full set-aside predicts a small increase in offer prices and winning prices among small businesses. With these predictions, we infer that net profit of small businesses is unlikely to increase when set-asides are present.

Suggested Citation

  • Ni Yan & WenTing Tao, 2023. "Set-Asides in USDA Food Procurement Auctions," Papers 2302.05772, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2302.05772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.05772
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James M. MacDonald & Charles R. Handy & Gerald E. Plato, 2002. "Competition and Prices in USDA Commodity Procurement," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(1), pages 128-143, July.
    2. Susan Athey & Dominic Coey & Jonathan Levin, 2013. "Set-Asides and Subsidies in Auctions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, February.
    3. Nakabayashi, Jun, 2013. "Small business set-asides in procurement auctions: An empirical analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 28-44.
    4. James M. MacDonald & Charles R. Handy & Gerald E. Plato, 2002. "Competition and Prices in USDA Commodity Procurement," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(1), pages 128-143, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernhardt, Dan & Liu, Tingjun & Sogo, Takeharu, 2020. "Costly auction entry, royalty payments, and the optimality of asymmetric designs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Philippe Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2020. "On the Benefits of Set-Asides," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1655-1696.
    3. José Alcalde & Matthias Dahm, "undated". "Supplier Diversity before the Time of Cholera," Discussion Papers in Economics 20/07, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    4. Rosa, Benjamin, 2016. "Subcontracting Requirements and the Cost of Government Procurement," MPRA Paper 77392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Fernandez-Perez, Adrian & Miffre, Joëlle & Schoen, Tilman & Scott, Ayesha, 2023. "Do spot market auction data help price discovery?," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    6. Benjamin V. Rosa, 2019. "Resident Bid Preference, Affiliation, and Procurement Competition: Evidence from New Mexico," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 161-208, June.
    7. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2020. "Affirmative Action Through Endogenous Set-Asides," QM&ET Working Papers 20-1, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    8. Tkachenko, Andrey, 2022. "State-business relations and access to external financing," BOFIT Discussion Papers 10/2022, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    9. Paulo R. C. Reis & Sandro Cabral, 2015. "Public procurement strategy: the impacts of a preference programme for small and micro businesses," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 103-110, March.
    10. Tkachenko, Andrey, 2022. "State-business relations and access to external financing," BOFIT Discussion Papers 10/2022, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    11. Sandro Cabral, 2017. "Reconciling Conflicting Policy Objectives in Public Contracting: The Enabling Role of Capabilities," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 823-853, September.
    12. repec:zbw:bofitp:2022_010 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Key, Nigel D. & MacDonald, James M., 2008. "Local Monopsony Power in the Market for Broilers - Evidence from a Farm Survey," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6073, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Martin Schmidt, 2015. "Price Determination in Public Procurement: A Game Theory Approach," European Financial and Accounting Journal, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2015(1), pages 49-62.
    15. Olga Chiappinelli & Gyula Seres, 2021. "Optimal Discounts in Green Public Procurement," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1983, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Butler, Jeffrey V. & Carbone, Enrica & Conzo, Pierluigi & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2020. "Past performance and entry in procurement: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 179-195.
    17. Jehiel, Philippe & Lamy, Laurent, 2014. "On discrimination in procurement auctions," CEPR Discussion Papers 9790, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Manzano, Carolina & Vives, Xavier, 2021. "Market power and welfare in asymmetric divisible good auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    19. Dominic Coey & Bradley Larsen & Kane Sweeney, 2019. "The bidder exclusion effect," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(1), pages 93-120, March.
    20. Doran, Colin & Stratmann, Thomas, 2021. "How does liability affect prices? Railroad sparks and timber," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    21. James W. Roberts & Andrew Sweeting, 2013. "When Should Sellers Use Auctions?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1830-1861, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2302.05772. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.