IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/rampas/v2018y2018i30p24-36.html

Public Procurement Efficiency In Agriculture And Forestry In Slovakia

Author

Listed:
  • Beata GAVUROVA

    (Technical University of Kosice; Nemcovej 32, 040 01 Kosice; Slovak Republic)

  • David TUCEK

    (Tomas Bata University in Zlin; Nam. T. G. Masaryka 5555; Zlin; Czech Republic)

  • Andrea TKACOVA

    (Technical University of Kosice; Nemcovej 32, 040 01 Kosice; Slovak Republic)

  • Jakub DANKO

    (Technical University of Kosice; Nemcovej 32, 040 01 Kosice; Slovak Republic)

Abstract

Agriculture and forestry in Slovakia is a sector that includes the highest number of contract awards in public procurement. The main aim of this article is to identify an influence of selected determinants on public procurement efficiency in agricultural and forestry sector in Slovakia. There are created two basic types of models based on a sample of 291 contracts, which were formed by means of a multiple linear regression in program R. The first model examines an influence of variables on public procurement savings that is defined as a rate of the final and probable price of the contract. This model confirms a positive influence of a number of offers on savings’ formation, where each next offer increases saving of approximately 8.816 %. On the other hand, a subcontractor’s presence reduces saving by 19.9 %. The second model examines and influence of variables on a number of offers in public procurement. The number of offers in a given sector positively influences a public competition, while there is usually of three offers more than in the negotiating process. However, the number of offers decreases when a contract is financing from the EU funds and when contract specifies a criterion of quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Beata GAVUROVA & David TUCEK & Andrea TKACOVA & Jakub DANKO, 2018. "Public Procurement Efficiency In Agriculture And Forestry In Slovakia," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2018(30), pages 24-36, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:rom:rampas:v:2018:y:2018:i:30:p:24-36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ramp.ase.ro/_data/files/articole/2018/30-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ido Millet & Diane H. Parente & John L. Fizel & Ray R. Venkataraman, 2004. "Metrics for Managing Online Procurement Auctions," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 171-179, June.
    2. Baldwin, Laura H & Marshall, Robert C & Richard, Jean-Francois, 1997. "Bidder Collusion at Forest Service Timber Sales," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(4), pages 657-699, August.
    3. Daniel Rondeau & Pascal Courty & Maurice Doyon, 2016. "Simultaneous Allocation of Bundled Goods through Auctions: Assessing the Case for Joint Bidding," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 838-859.
    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. Beata GAVUROVA & Martin MIKESKA & Eva HUCULOVA, 2020. "Evaluation Of Selected Determinants Of Public Procurement In The Health Sector," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2020(34), pages 45-63, June.
    2. Beata GAVUROVA & David TUCEK & Viliam KOVAC, 2019. "Economic Aspects Of Public Procurement Parameters In Tertiary Education Sector," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2019(32), pages 42-62, June.

    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. Alok Gupta & Stephen Parente & Pallab Sanyal, 2012. "Competitive bidding for health insurance contracts: lessons from the online HMO auctions," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 303-322, December.
    2. Nicolas Gruyer, 2009. "Optimal Auctions When A Seller Is Bound To Sell To Collusive Bidders," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 835-850, December.
    3. Nianqing Liu & Yao Luo, 2017. "A Nonparametric Test For Comparing Valuation Distributions In First‐Price Auctions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(3), pages 857-888, August.
    4. Lamy, Laurent, 2012. "The econometrics of auctions with asymmetric anonymous bidders," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 167(1), pages 113-132.
    5. Florencia Gabrielli, 2014. "Econometrics of First Price Auctions: a Survey of the Theoretical and Applied Literature," Económica, Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, vol. 60, pages 77-118, January-D.
    6. Gerard Marty & Raphaele Preget, 2007. "A Socio-economic Analysis of French Public Timber Sales," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2007-03, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    7. Luo, Yao, 2020. "Unobserved heterogeneity in auctions under restricted stochastic dominance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 354-374.
    8. Iossa, Elisabetta & Loertscher, Simon & Marx, Leslie & Rey, Patrick, 2020. "Collusive Market Allocations," CEPR Discussion Papers 14563, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Philip A. Haile & Elie Tamer, 2003. "Inference with an Incomplete Model of English Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 1-51, February.
    10. James W. Roberts & Andrew Sweeting, 2013. "When Should Sellers Use Auctions?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1830-1861, August.
    11. Ken Hendricks & Robert Porter & Guofu Tan, 2008. "Bidding rings and the winner's curse," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 1018-1041, December.
    12. Eric Zitzewitz, 2012. "Forensic Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(3), pages 731-769, September.
    13. Troyan, Peter, 2017. "Collusion and signaling in auctions with interdependent values," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 319-345.
    14. Ernan Haruvy & Peter Popkowski Leszczyc & Octavian Carare & James Cox & Eric Greenleaf & Wolfgang Jank & Sandy Jap & Young-Hoon Park & Michael Rothkopf, 2008. "Competition between auctions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 431-448, December.
    15. Radoslav Delina & Renata Olejarova & Petr Doucek, 2023. "Effect of a new potential supplier on business to business negotiations performance: evidence-based analysis," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1941-1970, September.
    16. Huber, Martin & Imhof, David, 2019. "Machine learning with screens for detecting bid-rigging cartels," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 277-301.
    17. Jean-François Richard, 2019. "Bidder Collusion: Accounting for All Feasible Bidders," Working Paper 6759, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    18. Jianfu Shen & Frederik Pretorius & Xin Li, 2019. "Does Joint Bidding Reduce Competition? Evidence from Hong Kong Land Auctions," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 111-132, January.
    19. Nicolas Gruyer, 2005. "Using lotteries in auctions when buyers collude," Economics Working Papers 02, LEEA (air transport economics laboratory), ENAC (french national civil aviation school).
    20. Kanieski da Silva, Bruno & Tanger, Shaun & Marufuzzaman, Mohammad & Cubbage, Frederick, 2022. "Perfect assumptions in an imperfect world: Managing timberland in an oligopoly market," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures
    • Q14 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Finance
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:rom:rampas:v:2018:y:2018:i:30:p:24-36. 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: Androniceanu Armenia (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ccasero.html .

    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.