IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qld/uq2004/588.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A competitive framework for government’s engagement of researchers

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Heard

    (School of Economics, The University of Queensland)

  • Flavio M. Menezes

    (School of Economics, The University of Queensland)

Abstract

This article identifies a range of contestable and transparent mechanisms that Australian government agencies (including departments) may use to engage academic consultants and supporting research. It also provides guidance on deciding which mechanisms (such as tenders, calls for proposals or hybrid approaches) are most appropriate in specific circumstances. The key conclusion is that the selection of a mechanism involves trade-offs, and the best choice will likely depend on the research topic, the nature of the project, and the level of expertise within the agency.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Heard & Flavio M. Menezes, 2018. "A competitive framework for government’s engagement of researchers," Discussion Papers Series 588, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
  • Handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.uq.edu.au/files/46280/588.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-286, July.
    2. John Asker & Estelle Cantillon, 2008. "Properties of scoring auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 69-85, March.
    3. Menezes, Flavio M., 2008. "An Introduction to Auction Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199275991.
    4. Milgrom,Paul, 2004. "Putting Auction Theory to Work," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521536721.
    5. Klemperer, Paul, 1999. " Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-86, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Axel Ockenfels & David Reiley & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2006. "Online Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Ravi Kashyap, 2018. "Auction Theory Adaptations for Real Life Applications," Papers 1810.01736, arXiv.org, revised May 2019.
    3. Paul Klemperer, 2007. "Bidding Markets," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-47.
    4. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    5. Onderstal, Sander, 2009. "Bidding for the unemployed: An application of mechanism design to welfare-to-work programs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 715-722, August.
    6. Gérard P. Cachon & Fuqiang Zhang, 2006. "Procuring Fast Delivery: Sole Sourcing with Information Asymmetry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 881-896, June.
    7. Corina Haita-Falah, 2016. "Uncertainty and speculators in an auction for emissions permits," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 315-343, June.
    8. Jarl G. Kallberg & Crocker H. Liu & Adam Nowak, 2021. "An Empirical Analysis of Double Round Auctions," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 49(2), pages 531-555, June.
    9. Koning, Pierre & van de Meerendonk, Arthur, 2014. "The impact of scoring weights on price and quality outcomes: An application to the procurement of Welfare-to-Work contracts," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 1-14.
    10. Pickl, Matthias & Wirl, Franz, 2011. "Auction design for gas pipeline transportation capacity--The case of Nabucco and its open season," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 2143-2151, April.
    11. Werner Hölzl & Michael Böheim & Michael Klien & Eva Pichler, 2017. "Das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Billigst- und Bestbieterprinzip," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 59256, April.
    12. Isa Hafalir & Onur Kesten & Katerina Sherstyuk & Cong Tao, 2023. "When Speed is of Essence: Perishable Goods Auctions," Working Papers 202310, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    13. Kashyap, Ravi, 2018. "Auction theory adaptations for real life applications," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 452-481.
    14. Krishna Pant, 2015. "Uniform-Price Reverse Auction for Estimating the Costs of Reducing Open-Field Burning of Rice Residue in Nepal," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 567-581, November.
    15. Kaplan, Todd R. & Zamir, Shmuel, 2015. "Advances in Auctions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    16. Hidenori Takahashi, 2018. "Strategic design under uncertain evaluations: structural analysis of design‐build auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(3), pages 594-618, September.
    17. Estrella Alonso & Juan Tejada, 2010. "Equivalencia de Ingresos en un Duopolio Eléctrico," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 47(136), pages 191-215.
    18. Michael Schwarz & Konstantin Sonin, 2001. "The Variable Value Environment: Auctions and Actions," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1918, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
    19. Strömbäck, Elon, 2015. "Policy by Public Procurement: Opportunities and Pitfalls," Umeå Economic Studies 915, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    20. Peyman Khezr & Anne Cumpston, 2022. "A review of multiunit auctions with homogeneous goods," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1225-1247, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research engagement; procurement; contestability.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H83 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Public Administration

    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:qld:uq2004:588. 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: SOE IT (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decuqau.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.