Seleziona una pagina
research

published papers

“Bureaucratic Competence and Procurement Outcomes” 

with F. Decarolis, E. Iossa, V. Mollisi, G. Spagnolo

The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (2020) 

To what extent does a more competent public bureaucracy contribute to better economic outcomes? We address this question in the context of the US federal procurement of services and works, by combining contract-level data on procurement performance and bureau-level data on competence and workforce characteristics. We use the death occurrences of specific types of employees as instruments and find that an increase in bureau competence causes a significant and economically important reduction in: i) time delays, ii) cost overruns, and iii) number of renegotiations. Cooperation within the office appears to be a key driver of the findings.

“Buyer’s Role in Innovation Procurement:  Evidence from U.S. Military R&D Contracts

with F. Decarolis, G. de Rassenfosse, E. Iossa, V. Mollisi, E. Raiteri, G. Spagnolo
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy (2021)

This study provides the first quantification of buyers’ role in the outcome of R&D procurement contracts. We combine together four data sources on US federal R&D contracts, follow-on patented inventions, federal public workforce characteristics, and perception of their work environment. By exploiting the observability of deaths of federal employees, we find that managers’ death events negatively affect innovation outcomes: a 1 percent increase in the share of relevant public officer deaths causes a decline of 32.3 percent of patents per contract, 20.5 percent patent citations per contract and 34.3 percent patent claims per contract. These effects are driven by the deaths occurring in the six months before the contract is awarded, thereby indicating the relevance of the design and award stage relative to ex-post contract monitoring. Lower levels of self-reported within-office cooperation also negatively impact R&D outcomes. 

research

Working Papers

“Supplier Selection and Contract Enforcement: Evidence from Performance Bonding” 

(previously circulated under the title “Can the Private Sector Ensure the Public Interest? Evidence from Federal Procurement”)

with G. Rovigatti

R&R,  Journal of Economics & Management Strategy

We analyze an important but little-studied institution for balancing supply risk in the management of procurement operations: performance bonding. By adding the surety as a third party that guarantees contract fulfillment between supplier and buyer, performance bonding aims to streamline the purchasing process by influencing both contractor selection in the bidding phase and contract enforcement during project execution. Using the data on US government procurement from 2005 to 2015 and exploiting an exogenous variation in the threshold for its application to construction contracts, we find that performance bonding improves contract outcomes by 9 and 4.2 percent in terms of delays and extra costs, respectively. Net of bond premia, which by law are included in the award amounts, this effect translates into a savings of about 4 percent in the budget for federal construction projects and 16 percent for mid-size projects. We provide suggestive evidence on the effectiveness of selection and monitoring by sureties as driving channels.

Keywords: supplier selection; contract enforcement; public procurement; performance bond; constructions.  JEL Classification: D21, D44, D82; H57; L74

SIEP Prize

Best unpublished paper written by author(s) under the age of thirty-five presented at the XXIX SIEP Conference

“What are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials” 

with J. Tukiainen, S. Blesse, A. Bohne, J. Jääskeläinen, A. Luukinen, A. Sieppi

Submitted

A well-functioning bureaucracy is a precondition for efficient public goods provision. However, bureaucratic decision-making is still largely seen as a black box. We provide novel insights into the preferences of bureaucrats regarding their work outcomes. We focus on a major public sector activity and survey more than 900 real-life procurement officials in Finland and Germany. The questionnaire includes hypothetical choice experiments to study the relative importance of multiple features in tender outcomes. First, bureaucrats state to have substantial discretion at work but no important incentives, which makes their preferences relevant. Second, our experimental results show that procurers have asymmetric preferences regarding prices: Unexpectedly high prices are avoided but corresponding low prices are not particularly attractive. This creates a tension between the taxpayers’ and procurement officials’ objectives. Third, avoiding bidders with prior bad performance appears to be the most important factor. Fourth, procurers value a certain degree of competition, while litigation concerns and regional favoritism play only a small role. The striking lack of heterogeneous effects across different institutional settings points towards the role of intrinsic motivation among public buyers in countries with high public sector capacity.

 Keywords: Bureaucrats, Public Procurement, Preferences, Intrinsic Motivation, Conjoint Experiment. JEL Classification: D73, D90; H11, H57, H83; K41; M54.

“Buyers’ Workload and R&D Procurement Outcomes: Evidence from the US Air Force Research Lab”

with E. Raiteri

Submitted 

Is excessive workload a bottleneck to public agencies? Examining R&D procurements by the US government, we link contract, patent, and office records to the officer responsible to estimate how workload affects contract execution. Unanticipated retirement shifts among officers are used to instrument workload. When an officer’s workload declines, we find a large increase in patenting—keeping procurement budget and number of purchases fixed, an additional officer leads to a 2 percentage point increase in the probability that a contract generates patents, representing 22% of sample variation. We provide suggestive evidence that overworked officers cannot devote sufficient time to key contract specifications.

 Keywords: Workload, Public Procurement, Contracting Officer, R&D, Patents. JEL Classification: D23; H57; O31, O32.

“Procuring Survival”

with M. Cappelletti

Public spending (i.e., “G”) enables governments to fulfill their fiscal policies. This paper takes a micro perspective and quantifies the impact of procurement spending—a specific component of G—on firm survival. We find that firms that receive public contracts survive longer, ceteris paribus, and that this effect accrues over time, reaching 20 percentage points after ten years. Our results are based on a novel dataset for Italy that combines balance sheet data on the universe of limited liability firms with administrative records on market entry and exit and quasi-universe of public contract data between 2008 and 2018. For construction auctions, we also rely on bid-level data to inform a regression discontinuity analysis. We find that the survival rate of winners relative to marginal losers is 70% higher after 36 months—or after two years and half of the median contract expiration. We explore several alternative channels that could rationalize our findings. We find that recipients do not become more productive, and their earnings become increasingly dependent on sales to public customers.

Keywords: firm survival, firm dynamics, government demand, public procurement, demand shocks, productivity, auctions, regression discontinuity design. JEL Classification: D44, H32, H57.

research

WORK IN PROGRESS

  • The Impact of Set-Asides on Government Procurement. RQ: does restricting ex-ante competition affect pre-award and post-award procurement outcomes? (with Cappelletti M.) 

  • Are EU Cohesion Funds Procured Away? Do Objective 1 European regions channel the additional public funding to public contracts? (with Bohne, A. and Casper, J.) 

research

other publications

“The Role of Buyer Competence” 

with F. Decarolis, E. Iossa, V. Mollisi

Chapter 7 of the CEPR e-book “Procurement in Focus: Rules, Discretion, and Emergencies”, edited by O. Bandiera, E. Bosio, G. Spagnolo