Friday, December 2, 2022
HomeEconomicsProcurement with manipulation | VOX, CEPR Coverage Portal

Procurement with manipulation | VOX, CEPR Coverage Portal

Decio Coviello, Andrea Guglielmo, Clarissa Lotti, Giancarlo Spagnolo 24 March 2022

Governments world wide often procure a considerable amount of items, companies, and public works from non-public suppliers, a few of that are essential to social welfare and financial progress. Positioned on the intersection of presidency and the non-public sector, public procurement is at appreciable threat of corruption and so is very regulated. Guidelines usually restrict public consumers’ discretion within the awarding of contracts and change into extra stringent when these exceed sure worth thresholds. 

Alternatively, guidelines limiting bureaucrats’ discretion come at the price of not permitting them to carry out successfully, so the quantity of guidelines and discretion ought to commerce off the good thing about stopping corruption with the price of poor administrative efficiency (Banfield 1975, Kelman 1990). Current financial analysis on procurement has lastly recognised these two contrasting roles of discretion: not solely its well-known position in facilitating corruption (Rose-Ackerman 1999, Di Tella and Schargrodsky 2003), but additionally its position in enhancing efficiency in a world of contractual incompleteness and imperfect enforcement (Spagnolo 2012, Coviello et al. 2016, 2018, Decarolis et al. 2020b, Bandiera et al. 2021a, 2021b, Parry et al. 2020, Coviello et al. 2021). Helpful and detrimental makes use of of discretion usually coexist, in order that who does what and which of the 2 results dominates are empirical questions. Certainly, one of many foremost findings of the cross-country comparability of procurement legal guidelines, practices, and outcomes by Bosio et al. (2020a, 2020b) is that guidelines and discretion could have very totally different results in numerous institutional environments. 

In a brand new paper (Coviello et al. 2022), we look at how and by whom ‘unlawful’ discretion – obtained by illegal manipulations of contract values – is utilized in public procurement, and with what penalties by way of remaining procurement outcomes.

To deal with our analysis questions, we leverage a big pattern of Italian procurement knowledge to check the consequences of contract worth manipulation (bunching) to keep away from crossing thresholds in procurement laws that scale back the discretion out there to contracting authorities. Italy is a very attention-grabbing atmosphere to check. Bosio et al. (2020a, 2020b) discover that it’s among the many most strictly regulated nations on this planet (far more than different nations with equally excessive ranges of human capital) and that – probably because of this – it ranks comparatively low by way of procurement high quality. Manipulation to bypass such strict guidelines would possibly then present advantages by way of improved procurement high quality, alongside a rise in potential abuses, in a rustic with comparatively excessive ranges of (perceived) corruption. 

Bunching under procurement thresholds has been studied earlier than by Palguta and Pertold (2017), Szucs (2020), and Carril (2021) for discretion-reducing guidelines within the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the US, respectively. To the most effective of our data, our paper is the primary that goals to reply the query of who bunches and why, thereby additionally referring to the literature on the necessary position of public consumers’ traits in figuring out procurement outcomes (Bandiera et al. 2009, Finest et al. 2017, Bucciol et al. 2020, Decarolis et al. 2018, 2020a, 2021). 

Our knowledge cowl the interval between 2000 and 2005, when Italian public administrations have been topic to the identical nationwide procurement regulation. Under sure thresholds within the worth of procurement, this regulation allowed a extra intensive use of discretionary procedures, resembling auctions restricted to invited bidders, leaving administrations free to determine who (not) to ask to bid. The information embody data on public works from roughly 10,000 administrations, encompassing not solely customary procurement outcomes (i.e. variety of bidders, winner, and reductions), but additionally ex-post outcomes such because the length of public works, delays from contractual deadlines, and value overruns from the value decided throughout the public sale. We match these knowledge with data on the political traits of public administrations and with a dataset that accommodates stability sheet data on suppliers, together with monetary default threat. 

Determine 1 reveals the outcomes of manipulation checks for the 4 foremost varieties of contracting authorities in our pattern. We doc intensive bunching just under two discretion-reducing thresholds and discover that this impact primarily issues public administrations whose officers are appointed by the federal government (henceforth, ‘appointed administrations’), resembling ministries and the street authority. Bunching disappears when the officers inside an administration are instantly elected (henceforth, ‘elected administrations’), resembling municipalities and provinces. This proof is akin to the one we acquire with bunching estimators. Additional, we formally confirm that manipulation is predominant in appointed administrations however muted in elected administrations, utilizing machine studying evaluation and controlling for different observable traits. We interpret our findings as suggestive that electoral accountability could forestall elected administrations from circumventing procedural guidelines by manipulating the worth of contracts. 

We then estimate the consequences of manipulation on discretion and procurement outcomes and the consequences of manipulation-induced discretion on outcomes for appointed administrations, utilizing the approach developed by Diamond and Persson (2016). We discover that manipulation has a optimistic impression on using discretionary procedures by decreasing the variety of bids and with blended results on rebates relying on the brink (our knowledge consists of two discretion-reducing thresholds). Concerning ex-post outcomes, manipulation has constantly optimistic results: for each thresholds, it reduces the full length of works, delays in challenge supply, and value overruns. 

Determine 1 Manipulation checks across the thresholds for appointed and elected administrations 

Observe: The determine reveals discontinuity checks of the worth of the challenge across the €200,000 and the €300,000 thresholds, individually for appointed and elected administrations. In every panel, the working variable is the distinction between the reserve worth and the brink (vertical line); circles are common noticed values; the daring, stable line is a kernel estimate (see McCrary 2008); and the 2 skinny strains are 95% confidence intervals. The proof means that the null speculation of no sorting is rejected at customary statistical confidence ranges at each thresholds just for appointed administrations solely.

Once we have a look at the traits of chosen suppliers, we discover that it reduces the chance {that a} winner is (ex-ante) financially dangerous with no impression on their productiveness. Lastly, we discover that manipulation will increase incumbency, measured by repeated awards to the identical suppliers. This implies that a technique manipulation improves outcomes could also be by utilizing discretion to pick out or set up relationships with much less dangerous and better-performing suppliers, maybe at the price of costlier procurement. 

Our outcomes are confirmed by machine studying evaluation and are strong to straightforward variations of the bunching strategies. Moreover, we cross-validate our foremost estimates utilizing a singular quasi-experiment decided by a 2006 procurement reform that shifted the discretion thresholds. We discover that administrations shortly regulate to the brand new guidelines, however heterogeneously based mostly on how directors are chosen in workplace: appointed administrations are people who react to the reform, whereas the response of elected administrations is extra muted. 

In sum, our findings are coherent with appointed administrations violating procedural guidelines to govern the worth of contracts to retain discretion, and use it typically sufficient to ascertain repeated interactions with much less dangerous and better-performing suppliers, in order that on common procurement outcomes enhance. Conversely, we discover no manipulation (and poorer procurement outcomes) for elected administrations, probably as a result of stronger electoral self-discipline.

We interpret our findings by the lens of a easy mannequin of procurement that extends the mannequin in Bosio et al. (2020a, 2020b) by introducing the chance for procuring administrations to govern the worth of contracts and to acquire discretion at a value which will depend upon electoral incentives. The mannequin has a number of equilibria, two of which predict environment friendly manipulation (improved procurement efficiency) and incumbency – one with bribes and one with out. Our empirical outcomes are appropriate with each equilibria. They need to subsequently be interpreted as a mean amongst these coexisting instances, dominating these with inefficient manipulation. 

In a broader sense, our outcomes point out that accounting for the heterogeneity throughout authorities businesses is necessary for a full understanding of bureaucratic behaviour. They’re subsequently in step with Bandiera et al. (2009), who present that extreme regulation, pink tape, and bureaucratic inefficiency are extra vital sources of waste than corruption in Italy, and that extra autonomous administrations have higher procurement processes and are much less corrupt. Additionally they assist the conclusion of Bosio et al. (2020a, 2020b), that trying on the legal guidelines with out accounting for the observe doesn’t permit a full understanding of the consequences of regulation, and that in excessive human capital nations, fewer guidelines constraining bureaucratic discretion or a looser enforcement of those guidelines would doubtless be useful. 


Bandiera, O, A Prat and T Valletti (2009), “Energetic and Passive Waste in Authorities Spending: Proof from a Coverage Experiment”, American Financial Overview 99(4): 1278-1308.

Bandiera, O, M C Finest, A Q Khan and A Prat (2021a), “The Allocation of Authority in Organizations: A Discipline Experiment with Bureaucrats”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 136(4): 2195-2242.

Bandiera, O, E Bosio and G Spagnolo (2021b), “Discretion, effectivity, and abuse in public procurement: A brand new eBook”,, 30 November.

Banfield, E C (1975), “Corruption as a Characteristic of Governmental Group”, Journal of Regulation and Economics 18(3): 587-605.

Finest, M C, J Hjort and D Szakonyi (2017), “People and Organizations as Sources of State Effectiveness”, NBER Working Paper No. 23350.

Bosio, E, S Djankov, E L Glaeser and A Shleifer (2020a), “Public Procurement in Regulation and Follow”, NBER Working Paper No. 27188, forthcoming within the American Financial Overview.

Bosio, E, S Djankov, E Glaeser and A Shleifer (2020b), “Corruption in public procurement”,, 5 November. 

Bucciol, A, R Camboni and P Valbonesi (2020), “Buying medical units: The position of purchaser competence and discretion”, Journal of Well being Economics 74: 65-81.

Carril, R (2021), “Guidelines versus discretion in public procurement”, Economics Working Papers 1765, Division of Economics and Enterprise, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Coviello, D, A Guglielmo and G Spagnolo (2016), “The impact of discretion on procurement efficiency: Effectivity versus corruption”,, 7 August.

Coviello, D, A Guglielmo and G Spagnolo (2018), “The Impact of Discretion on Procurement Efficiency”, Administration Science 64(2): 715-738.

Coviello, D, C Lotti and G Spagnolo (2021), “Guidelines, bunching and discretion in emergency procurement: Proof from an earthquake”, in O Bandiera, E Bosio and G Spagnolo (eds.), Procurement in Focus: Guidelines, Discretion, and Emergencies, CEPR Press.

Coviello, D, A Guglielmo, C Lotti and G Spagnolo (2022), “Procurement with Manipulation”, CEPR Dialogue Paper No. 17063.

Decarolis, F, L M Giuffrida, E Iossa, V Mollisi and G Spagnolo (2018), “The (massive) impression of purchaser competence on the associated fee and timing of procurement”,, 31 Could.

Decarolis, F, L M Giuffrida, E Iossa, V Mollisi and G Spagnolo (2020a), “Bureaucratic Competence and Procurement Outcomes”, The Journal of Regulation, Economics, and Group 36(3): 537-597. 

Decarolis, F, R J Fisman, P Pinotti and S Vannutelli (2020b), “Guidelines, Discretion, and Corruption in Procurement: Proof from Italian Authorities Contracting”, NBER Working Paper No. 28209. 

Decarolis, F, G de Rassenfosse, L M Giuffrida, E Iossa, V Mollisi, E Raiteri and G Spagnolo (2021), “Consumers’ position in innovation procurement: Proof from US navy RD contracts”, Journal of Economics Administration Technique 30(4): 697-720. 

Diamond, R and P Persson (2016), “The Lengthy-term Penalties of Trainer Discretion in Grading of Excessive-stakes Assessments”, NBER Working Paper No. 22207. 

Di Tella, R and E Schargrodsky (2003), “The Function of Wages and Auditing throughout a Crackdown on Corruption within the Metropolis of Buenos Aires”, The Journal of Regulation & Economics 46(1): 269-292. 

Kelman, S (1990), Procurement and Public Administration: The Worry of Discretion and the High quality of Authorities Efficiency, AEI Press.

McCrary, J (2008), “Manipulation of the working variable within the regression discontinuity design: A density check”, Journal of Econometrics 142(2): 698-714.

Palguta, J and F Pertold (2017), “Manipulation of Procurement Contracts: Proof from the Introduction of Discretionary Thresholds”, American Financial Journal: Financial Coverage 9(2): 293-315.

Parry, Okay, O Bandiera, M Finest, A Khan and A Prat (2020), “Autonomy – not guidelines – stands out as the authorities’s finest weapon within the battle towards corruption”,, 13 Could.

Rose-Ackerman, S (1999), Corruption and Authorities: Causes, Penalties, and Reform, Cambridge College Press.

Spagnolo, G (2012), “Status, Competitors, and Entry in Procurement”, Worldwide Journal of Industrial Group 30(3): 291-296

Szucs, F (2020), “Discretion and favoritism in public procurement”, Job market paper. 



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments