This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Corruption and Collusion in Procurement Tenders

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky (CERAS Ecole Nationale des Ponts Chaussee, CNRS URA 2036 and New Economic School)
Konstantin Sonin () (New Economic School/CEFIR and CEPR)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

There is a mounting body of evidence that collusive agreements between bidders in large multiple-object procurement tenders are often supported by a corrupt administrator. In a first-price multiple-object auction, if the auctioneer has some legal discretion to allow bidders to readjust their offers prior to the official opening, he also has incentives to extract bribes from agents in exchange for abusing this discretion. In particular, corrupt agent’s incentives to receive bribes are closely linked with that of creating a ’bidding ring’ as the agent’s discretionary power gains value when firms collude. Thus, corruption generates focal equilibria where bidders fully refrain from competing with each other. Additional flexibility of the auction format such as the possibility to submit package bids, which is often considered to be efficiency-enhancing in theoretical literature, increases the risk of collusion in the presence of corruption. Such problems are more likely to arise in tenders, where participating firms are not too close competitors.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.cefir.ru/papers/WP36.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR) in its series Working Papers with number w0036.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 31 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cfr:cefirw:w0036

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 117418 Russia, Moscow, Nakhimovsky pr., 47, office 720
Phone: +7 (495) 105 50 02
Fax: +7 (495) 105 50 03
Email:
Web page: http://www.cefir.ru
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Julia Babich) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Julia Babich to update the entry or send us the correct address..

Related research
Keywords: auctions; corruption; collusion;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
D - Microeconomics
H - Public Economics
K - Law and Economics

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Tina Søreide, 2006. "Beaten by bribery: Why not blow the whistle?," CMI Working Papers WP 2006: 5, CMI (Chr. Michelsen Institute), Bergen, Norway. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Sonin Konstantin, 2004. "Private interest in public tenders: no revenue, no efficiency and no social benefits," EERC Working Paper Series 00-111e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All bibliographic data on IDEAS has been put in the public domain by the publishers.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-1.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.