IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/13-pa-2014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effectiveness of simple homogeneous commodity procurement under rigid govermental regulation: the case of granulated sugar procurement in Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Andrey Yakovlev

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Aleksandra Bashina

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Olga Demidova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

In the 2000s the Russian government considered electronic auctions (e-auctions) as the best way to procure goods for public needs. In this paper we confirm this proposition using an empirical dataset of contracts for the procurement of granulated sugar in Russia in 2011. Our data shows that unit prices are higher in the case of long-term contracts. This result can be explained by the rigidity of public procurement regulations as Russian legislation allows only fixed price contracts. Under these conditions suppliers can participate in public procurement tenders for long-term contracts only if their price includes a “risk premium” covering additional expenses of the supplier in case of an unfavorable turn in the market. Our analysis shows that sugar prices in Russian public procurement are lower for contracts with higher volume. These results are in the line with conclusions of previous studies of public procurement in other countries. The influence of competition measured by the number of suppliers participating in the procurement procedure has a quadratic form. It means that the effect of a new participant is lower when number of competitors is higher and vice versa. Our analysis also shows that there are essential distinctions in the influence of the same factors on contract prices for competitive procedures and void auctions

Suggested Citation

  • Andrey Yakovlev & Aleksandra Bashina & Olga Demidova, 2014. "The effectiveness of simple homogeneous commodity procurement under rigid govermental regulation: the case of granulated sugar procurement in Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 13/PA/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:13/pa/2014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hse.ru/data/2014/02/17/1331165867/13PA2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, April.
    2. AndréS GóMez-Lobo & Stefan Szymanski, 2001. "A Law of Large Numbers: Bidding and Compulsory Competitive Tendering for Refuse Collection Contracts," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(1), pages 105-113, February.
    3. Marian W. Moszoro & Pablo T. Spiller, 2012. "Third-Party Opportunism and the Nature of Public Contracts," NBER Working Papers 18636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    5. Porter, Robert H & Zona, J Douglas, 1993. "Detection of Bid Rigging in Procurement Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 518-538, June.
    6. Lalive, Rafael & Schmutzler, Armin, 2011. "Auctions vs Negotiations in Public Procurement: Which Works Better?," CEPR Discussion Papers 8538, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Steven Tadelis, 2009. "Auctions Versus Negotiations in Procurement: An Empirical Analysis," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 372-399, October.
    8. Mercedes Vellez, 2011. "Auctions versus Negotiations: Evidence from Public Procurement in the Italian Healthcare Sector," CEIS Research Paper 191, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 29 Mar 2011.
    9. Nelson, Phillip, 1970. "Information and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(2), pages 311-329, March-Apr.
    10. Robert H. Porter & J. Douglas Zona, 1999. "Ohio School Milk Markets: An Analysis of Bidding," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 263-288, Summer.
    11. Ilya Morozov & Elena Podkolzina, 2013. "Collusion detection in procurement auctions," HSE Working papers WP BRP 25/EC/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    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. Raventós, Pedro & Zolezzi, Sandro, 2015. "Electronic tendering of pharmaceuticals and medical devices in Chile," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2569-2578.
    2. Fazekas,Mihály & Blum,Jurgen Rene, 2021. "Improving Public Procurement Outcomes : Review of Tools and the State of the Evidence Base," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9690, The World Bank.
    3. Tkachenko, Andrey & Yakovlev, Andrei & Kuznetsova, Aleksandra, 2017. "‘Sweet deals’: State-owned enterprises, corruption and repeated contracts in public procurement," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 52-67.

    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. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.
    2. Antonio Estache & A. Iimi, 2009. "Auctions with Endogenous Participation and Quality Thresholds: Evidence from ODA Infrastructure Procurement," Working Papers ECARES 2009_006, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Arfini, Filippo, 1999. "The value of typical products : the case of Prosciutto di Parma and Parmigiano Reggiano cheese," 67th Seminar, October 28-30, 1999, LeMans, France 241032, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Tribl, Christoph & Salhofer, Klaus, 2004. "Promoting Organic Food: Information Policy Versus Production Subsidy," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20003, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Olga N. Balaeva & Andrei A. Yakovlev, 2015. "Estimation of Costs in the Russian Public Procurement System: A Case Study of Voronezh State University," HSE Working papers WP BRP 41/MAN/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    6. Tamer Boyaci & Yalçin Akçay, 2016. "Pricing when customers have limited attention," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-01, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 19 Jan 2017.
    7. Benito Arruñada, 2004. "Quality safeguards and regulation of online pharmacies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 329-344, April.
    8. Guillaume P. Gruère & Colin A. Carter & Y. Hossein Farzin, 2008. "What labelling policy for consumer choice? The case of genetically modified food in Canada and Europe," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1472-1497, November.
    9. Athias, Laure & Nunez, Antonio, 2008. "The more the merrier? Number of bidders, information dispersion, renegotiation and winner’s curse in toll road concessions," MPRA Paper 10539, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Moszoro Marian W., 2016. "Coasean Quality of Regulated Goods," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(4), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Vincze, János, 2010. "Miért és mitől védjük a fogyasztókat?. Aszimmetrikus információ és/vagy korlátozott racionalitás [Asymmetric information and/or bounded rationality: why are consumers protected and from what?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 725-752.
    12. Benner, Dietrich, 2004. "Quality Ambiguity and the Market Mechanism for Credence Goods," Working Papers 98639, Universitaet Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Markets.
    13. Tamer Boyac? & Yalçın Akçay, 2018. "Pricing When Customers Have Limited Attention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 2995-3014, July.
    14. Berges, Miriam & Casellas, Karina, 2006. "Quality warranties and food products in Argentina. What do consumers believe in?," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1031, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    15. Jan Palguta, 2013. "Nonlinear Incentive Schemes and Corruption in Public Procurement: Evidence from the Czech Republic," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp483, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    16. repec:lic:licosd:33313 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Dariusz Mongiało, 2007. "Czynniki wpływające na strukturę rynku usług," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 85-98.
    18. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2010. "Green Leader or Green Liar? Differentiation and the role of NGOs," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10097, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    19. Bergman, Mats A. & Lundberg, Johan & Lundberg, Sofia & Stake, Johan Y., 2015. "Using spatial econometrics to test for collusive behavior in procurement auction data," Umeå Economic Studies 917, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    20. Imhof, David, 2017. "Simple Statistical Screens to Detect Bid Rigging," FSES Working Papers 484, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    21. Neda Trifković, 2018. "Certification and business risk," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2018-80, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public procurement; e-auctions; procurement effectiveness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement
    • P35 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions - - - Public Finance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hig:wpaper:13/pa/2014. 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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.