IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v9y2021i1p10-d473729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Method for Assessing Threats to the Economic Security of a Region: A Case Study of Public Procurement in Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Valentina Kravchenko

    (Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Graduate School of Industrial Economics, 195251 St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Tatiana Kudryavtseva

    (Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Graduate School of Industrial Economics, 195251 St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Yuriy Kuporov

    (Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Institute of Industrial Management, Economics and Trade, Graduate School of Industrial Economics, 195251 St. Petersburg, Russia)

Abstract

The issue of economic security is becoming an increasingly urgent one. The purpose of this article is to develop a method for assessing threats to the economic security of the Russian region. This method is based on step-by-step actions: first of all, choosing an element of the region’s economic security system and collecting its descriptive indicators; then grouping indicators by admittance-process-result categories and building hypotheses about their influence; testing hypotheses using a statistical package and choosing the most significant connections, which can pose a threat to the economic security of the region; thereafter ranking regions by the level of threats and developing further recommendations. The importance of this method is that with the help of grouping regions (territory of a country) based on proposed method, it is possible to develop individual economic security monitoring tools. As a result, the efficiency of that country’s region can be higher. In this work, the proposed method was tested in the framework of public procurement in Russia. A total of 14 indicators of procurement activity were collected for each region of the Russian Federation for the period from 2014 to 2018. Regression models were built on the basis of the grouped indicators. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Estimation was used. As a result of pairwise regression models analysis, we have defined four significant relationships between public procurement indicators. There are positive connections between contracts that require collateral and the percentage of tolerances, between the number of bidders and the number of regular suppliers, between the number of bidders and the average price drop, and between the number of purchases made from a single supplier and the number of contracts concluded without reduction. It was determined that the greatest risks for the system were associated with the connection between competition and budget savings. It was proposed to rank analyzed regions into four groups: ineffective government procurement, effective government procurement, and government procurement that threatens the system of economic security of the region, that is, high competition with low savings and low competition with high savings. Based on these groups, individual economic security monitoring tools can be developed for each region.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentina Kravchenko & Tatiana Kudryavtseva & Yuriy Kuporov, 2021. "A Method for Assessing Threats to the Economic Security of a Region: A Case Study of Public Procurement in Russia," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:9:y:2021:i:1:p:10-:d:473729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/9/1/10/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/9/1/10/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dastidar, Krishnendu Ghosh & Mukherjee, Diganta, 2014. "Corruption in delegated public procurement auctions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 122-127.
    2. Huang, Yangguang & Xia, Jijun, 2019. "Procurement auctions under quality manipulation corruption," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 380-399.
    3. Inna Gryshova & Mykola Kyzym & Irina Hubarieva & Viktoriia Khaustova & Anatoly Livinskyi & Mykola Koroshenko, 2020. "Assessment of the EU and Ukraine Economic Security and Its Influence on Their Sustainable Economic Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Wang, Hong, 2020. "Quality manipulation and limit corruption in competitive procurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 1124-1135.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huasheng Zhu & Duer Su & Fei Yao, 2022. "Spatio-Temporal Differences in Economic Security of the Prefecture-Level Cities in Qinghai–Tibet Plateau Region of China: Based on a Triple-Dimension Analytical Framework of Economic Geography," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-29, August.
    2. Viktoria Degtereva & Maria Liubarskaia & Viktoria Merkusheva & Alexey Artemiev, 2022. "Increasing Importance of Risk Management in the Context of Solid Waste Sphere Reforming in Russian Regions," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Awad Ali Alanzi, 2021. "Saudi Procurement System and Regulations: Overview of Local and International Administrative Contracts," Laws, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, May.

    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. Peng Hao & Jun-Peng Guo & Eoghan O’Neill & Yong-Heng Shi, 2023. "When Will First-Price Work Well? The Impact of Anti-Corruption Rules on Photovoltaic Power Generation Procurement Auctions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Chandel, Shivangi & Sarkar, Shubhro, 2023. "Corruption in multidimensional procurement auctions under asymmetry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Zhe Chen, 2021. "The bid orchestration and competitions in scoring procurement auctions," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(7), pages 1718-1729, October.
    4. Mac Clay, Pablo & Börner, Jan & Sellare, Jorge, 2023. "Institutional and macroeconomic stability mediate the effect of auctions on renewable energy capacity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Calogero Guccio & Domenico Lisi & Ilde Rizzo, 2019. "When the purchasing officer looks the other way: on the waste effects of debauched local environment in public works execution," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 205-236, September.
    6. Vendrell-Herrero, Ferran & Darko, Christian & Vaillant, Yancy, 2022. "Firm productivity and government contracts: The moderating role of corruption," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    7. Gauthier, Bernard & Goyette, Jonathan & Kouamé, Wilfried A.K., 2021. "Why do firms pay bribes? Evidence on the demand and supply sides of corruption in developing countries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 463-479.
    8. Diankai Wang & Inna Gryshova & Anush Balian & Mykola Kyzym & Tetiana Salashenko & Viktoriia Khaustova & Olexandr Davidyuk, 2022. "Assessment of Power System Sustainability and Compromises between the Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-23, February.
    9. Gabrielli, M. Florencia & Willington, Manuel, 2023. "Estimating damages from bidding rings in first-price auctions," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    10. Hualin Xie & Zhe Li & Yu Xu, 2022. "Study on the Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP) and Regional Economic System: A Case Study of Jiangxi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Werner Hölzl & Michael Böheim & Michael Klien & Eva Pichler, 2017. "Das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Billigst- und Bestbieterprinzip," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 59256, February.
    12. Wang, Hong, 2020. "Quality manipulation and limit corruption in competitive procurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 1124-1135.
    13. Tetsuro Mizoguchi & Nguyen Van Quyen, 2014. "Corruption in Public Procurement Market," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(5), pages 577-591, December.
    14. Kang, Sungwon & Kim, Daehwan & Kim, Geonhyeong, 2023. "Corporate entertainment expenses and corruption in public procurement," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    15. Yurii Kharazishvili & Aleksy Kwilinski & Olena Grishnova & Henryk Dzwigol, 2020. "Social Safety of Society for Developing Countries to Meet Sustainable Development Standards: Indicators, Level, Strategic Benchmarks (with Calculations Based on the Case Study of Ukraine)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Daniel Albalate & Germà Bel & Francisco González-Gómez & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2017. "Weakening political connections by means of regulatory reform: Evidence from contracting out water services in Spain," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 211-235, October.
    17. Jiancai Pi, 2021. "An investigation of seeming favoritism in public procurement," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 89(1), pages 128-137, January.
    18. Maréchal, François & Morand, Pierre-Henri, 2022. "Are social and environmental clauses a tool for favoritism? Analysis of French public procurement contracts," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    19. Fahn, Matthias & Hadjer, Tahmina, 2015. "Optimal contracting with private military and security companies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 220-240.
    20. Emanuel Wittberg & Mihály Fazekas, 2023. "Firm performance, imperfect competition, and corruption risks in procurement: evidence from Swedish municipalities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 227-251, October.

    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:gam:jrisks:v:9:y:2021:i:1:p:10-:d:473729. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.