IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/wc2000/0420.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition and Technological Complexity in Procurement: An Empirical Study of Dual Sourcing

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas P. Lyon

    (Indiana University)

Abstract

The role of competition in defense procurement has long been controversial due to the extraordinary demand for technological advance, the relatively small production quantities involved and the importance of learning by doing. Since the early 1980s, Defense Department policy has encouraged the use of competition in the production phase of procurement where possible, particularly for relatively simple technologies. Recent theory, however, suggests that splitting production between two bidders ("dual sourcing") produces strong incentives for collusion unless the bidders are unsure of each other's costs, e.g. for sophisticated technologies in the early phases of production. Furthermore, dual sourcing may help discipline contractors in settings where contractual incompleteness is a particular problem. For both these reasons, dual sourcing may be more valuable for complex, rather than simple, technologies. To date, however, there have been no attempts to investigate empirically how technological complexity affects the viability of competition in procurement. I explore the effects of dual sourcing using a panel dataset comprising 14 missile systems with an average of 12.5 years of production history per system. Each missile's complexity is categorized based on the nature of its guidance and control system. Simple missiles enjoy greater scale economies than complex missiles, but the learning curves for the two missile types are not significantly different. The effects of dual sourcing, though, depend importantly on the nature of the technology involved: it significantly speeds learning and interferes with scale economies for complex missiles, but has no significant effects for simple ones. Dual sourcing thus produces no apparent savings for simple missiles, but for the average complex missile dual sourcing lowers unit costs by the seventh year of dual sourcing. Whether these potential savings justify the costs of transferring technology to the second source and the possible weakening of R&D incentives remains an open question.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas P. Lyon, 2000. "Competition and Technological Complexity in Procurement: An Empirical Study of Dual Sourcing," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0420, Econometric Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:0420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/0420.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith J. Crocker & Kenneth J. Reynolds, 1993. "The Efficiency of Incomplete Contracts: An Empirical Analysis of Air Force Engine Procurement," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(1), pages 126-146, Spring.
    2. Donald B. Hausch & Yeon-Koo Che, 1999. "Cooperative Investments and the Value of Contracting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 125-147, March.
    3. James J. Anton & Dennis A. Yao, 1990. "Measuring the effectiveness of competition in defense procurement: A survey of the empirical literature," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 60-79.
    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. Christopher M Snyder & Robert P Trost & R. Derek Trunkey, 2001. "Bidding behavior in the department of defense's commercial activities competitions," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 21-42.
    2. Li, Sanxi & Sun, Hailin & Yan, Jianye & Yu, Jun, 2015. "Bundling decisions in procurement auctions with sequential tasks," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 96-106.

    More about this item

    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:ecm:wc2000:0420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.