A Comparison of Alternative Procedures for the Selection of the Private Partner in PPP Projects
In this work we compare three alternative procedures aimed at selecting a private partner in PPP projects: i.e. negotiation, auction and competitive negotiation. We show how the suitability of each of these selection mechanisms depends on many economic and institutional factors: e.g. the extent of contractual complexity, the degree of heterogeneity in firm costs, the level of competition, the probability of corruption. The main lesson of the paper is that the adoption of competitive negotiation can improve public welfare only if the institutional framework can ensure both an actual contestability of each contract and a low risk of corruption phenomena.
|Date of creation:||2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Via delle Pandette 9 50127 - Firenze - Italy|
Phone: +39 055 2759582
Web page: http://www.disei.unifi.it/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Leonardo Rezende, 2009. "Biased procurement auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 38(1), pages 169-185, January.
- Steven Tadelis, 2009.
"Auctions Versus Negotiations in Procurement: An Empirical Analysis,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 372-399, October.
- Patrick Bajari & Robert McMillan & Steven Tadelis, "undated". "Auctions versus Negotiations in Procurement: An Empirical Analysis," Working Papers 02007, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- Patrick Bajari & Robert S. McMillan & Steve Tadelis, 2003. "Auctions Versus Negotiations in Procurement: An Empirical Analysis," NBER Working Papers 9757, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ganuza, Juan-Jose & Pechlivanos, Lambros, 2000. "Heterogeneity-promoting optimal procurement," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 105-112, April.
- Juan J. Ganuza & Lambros Pechlivanos, 1998. "Heterogeneity-promoting optimal procurement," Economics Working Papers 377, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 1999.
- Jason Shachat & J. Todd Swarthout, 2003. "Procurement Auctions for Differentiated Goods," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-15, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Apr 2009.
- Jason Shachat & J. Todd Swarthout, 2003. "Procurement Auctions for Differentiated Goods," Experimental 0310004, EconWPA.
- James T. Swarthout & Jason Shachat, 2004. "Procurement Auctions for Differentiated Goods," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 629, Econometric Society.
- Andrea Bonaccorsi & Thomas Lyon & Fabio Pammolli & Giuseppe Turchetti, 1999. "Auctions vs. Bargaining: An Empirical Analysis of Medical Device Procurement," LEM Papers Series 1999/20, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
- Manelli, Alejandro M & Vincent, Daniel R, 1995. "Optimal Procurement Mechanisms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 591-620, May.
- Alejandro M. Manelli & Daniel R. Vincent, 1992. "Optimal Procurement Mechanisms," Discussion Papers 999, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Esther Gal-Or & Mordechai Gal-Or & Anthony Dukes, 2007. "Optimal information revelation in procurement schemes," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 400-418, 06. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)