IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v14y2018i2p30n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will Procurement Officials be Biased to Disregard Procurement Rules in Favor of a Low-priced, Albeit Defective, Bid?

Author

Listed:
  • Dekel Omer

    (Department of Law, College of Law and Business, Ramat-Gan, Israel)

  • Dotan Yoav

    (Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel)

Abstract

To what extent are professional decision-makers in the field of public procurement susceptible to cognitive biases? Recent research found a bias in favor of the lower bidder when ranking competing bids (Dekel and Schurr 2014, “Cognitive Biases in Government Procurement – an Experimental Study with Real Bid Evaluators,” 10(2) Review of Law and Economics 169–200). In the present research we examine this question regarding another stage of the public procurement process – the qualification stage. To this end, we conducted a series of experiments with the participation of procurement officials in situations that closely resemble their daily work. Our main finding is that even though procurement officials are susceptible to a cognitive bias when they have to score competing bids, they overcome that bias when asked to decide whether to qualify faulty or questionable bids. We cautiously ascribe this difference to the different types of decision-making involved, and suggest further explorations of these insights.

Suggested Citation

  • Dekel Omer & Dotan Yoav, 2018. "Will Procurement Officials be Biased to Disregard Procurement Rules in Favor of a Low-priced, Albeit Defective, Bid?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-30, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:14:y:2018:i:2:p:30:n:5
    DOI: 10.1515/rle-2016-0014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2016-0014
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/rle-2016-0014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mulder, Laetitia B. & Jordan, Jennifer & Rink, Floor, 2015. "The effect of specific and general rules on ethical decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 115-129.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:679-688 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Mulder, Laetitia B. & Rink, Floor & Jordan, Jennifer, 2020. "Constraining temptation: How specific and general rules mitigate the effect of personal gain on unethical behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. McKenzie R. Rees & Ann E. Tenbrunsel & Kristina A. Diekmann, 2022. "“It’s Just Business”: Understanding How Business Frames Differ from Ethical Frames and the Effect on Unethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 429-449, March.
    3. Shahidul Hassan & Sheela Pandey & Sanjay K. Pandey, 2021. "Should Managers Provide General or Specific Ethical Guidelines to Employees: Insights from a Mixed Methods Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 563-580, September.
    4. Leib, Margarita & Schweitzer, Maurice, 2020. "Peer Behavior Profoundly Influences Dishonesty: Will Individuals Seek-out Information about Peers’ Dishonesty?," OSF Preprints 3pwcg, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public procurement; cognitive bias; behavioral economics; lower bid bias; competitive bidding;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement
    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    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:bpj:rlecon:v:14:y:2018:i:2:p:30:n:5. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.