Suchergebnisse

Les contrats de Private Finance Initiative (PFI) britanniques ont connu un coup d'arrêt particulièrement marqué en 2010/11. Ce recul n'est pas seulement conjoncturel ou ne traduit pas seulement un épuisement progressif du réservoir de projets d'investissements publics éligibles. Il traduit à la fois un changement radical de la donne financière depuis la crise de 2008, induisant un net accroissement du surcoût du financement privé vis-à-vis du financement public et de fortes préventions de la part du nouveau gouvernement de coalition arrivé au pouvoir en juin 2010. Nous présentons dans une première partie les fondements théoriques et le développement historique des partenariats public-privé au Royaume-Uni depuis les années quatre-vingt. Nous nous attachons dans une première section aux intérêts théoriques des PPP pour l'analyse économique et la gestion publique avant de mettre en exergue le fait que le modèle partenarial s'est développé dans un contexte financier particulièrement favorable. Nous analysons dans une seconde section le contexte politique qui a accompagné la création et le développement du modèle britannique. Nous présentons également quelques statistiques sur les domaines concernés par ces contrats et sur les tendances en matière d'utilisation. Nous traitons dans notre seconde partie des trois grandes dimensions structurant le débat actuel sur les PFI à savoir l'évaluation de leur efficacité économique, les biais pouvant conduire à une décision publique sous-optimale en matière d'engagement dans des montages partenariaux, les risques d'arbitrages opportunistes en termes comptables et budgétaires et enfin les risques sur les finances publiques liées aux irréversibilités budgétaires induites et au renchérissement des coûts financiers.

Les contrats de Private Finance Initiative (PFI) britanniques ont connu un coup d'arrêt particulièrement marqué en 2010/11. Ce recul n'est pas seulement conjoncturel ou ne traduit pas seulement un épuisement progressif du réservoir de projets d'investissements publics éligibles. Il traduit à la fois un changement radical de la donne financière depuis la crise de 2008, induisant un net accroissement du surcoût du financement privé vis-à-vis du financement public et de fortes préventions de la part du nouveau gouvernement de coalition arrivé au pouvoir en juin 2010. Nous présentons dans une première partie les fondements théoriques et le développement historique des partenariats public-privé au Royaume-Uni depuis les années quatre-vingt. Nous nous attachons dans une première section aux intérêts théoriques des PPP pour l'analyse économique et la gestion publique avant de mettre en exergue le fait que le modèle partenarial s'est développé dans un contexte financier particulièrement favorable. Nous analysons dans une seconde section le contexte politique qui a accompagné la création et le développement du modèle britannique. Nous présentons également quelques statistiques sur les domaines concernés par ces contrats et sur les tendances en matière d'utilisation. Nous traitons dans notre seconde partie des trois grandes dimensions structurant le débat actuel sur les PFI à savoir l'évaluation de leur efficacité économique, les biais pouvant conduire à une décision publique sous-optimale en matière d'engagement dans des montages partenariaux, les risques d'arbitrages opportunistes en termes comptables et budgétaires et enfin les risques sur les finances publiques liées aux irréversibilités budgétaires induites et au renchérissement des coûts financiers.

Les contrats de Private Finance Initiative (PFI) britanniques ont connu un coup d'arrêt particulièrement marqué en 2010/11. Ce recul n'est pas seulement conjoncturel ou ne traduit pas seulement un épuisement progressif du réservoir de projets d'investissements publics éligibles. Il traduit à la fois un changement radical de la donne financière depuis la crise de 2008, induisant un net accroissement du surcoût du financement privé vis-à-vis du financement public et de fortes préventions de la part du nouveau gouvernement de coalition arrivé au pouvoir en juin 2010. Nous présentons dans une première partie les fondements théoriques et le développement historique des partenariats public-privé au Royaume-Uni depuis les années quatre-vingt. Nous nous attachons dans une première section aux intérêts théoriques des PPP pour l'analyse économique et la gestion publique avant de mettre en exergue le fait que le modèle partenarial s'est développé dans un contexte financier particulièrement favorable. Nous analysons dans une seconde section le contexte politique qui a accompagné la création et le développement du modèle britannique. Nous présentons également quelques statistiques sur les domaines concernés par ces contrats et sur les tendances en matière d'utilisation. Nous traitons dans notre seconde partie des trois grandes dimensions structurant le débat actuel sur les PFI à savoir l'évaluation de leur efficacité économique, les biais pouvant conduire à une décision publique sous-optimale en matière d'engagement dans des montages partenariaux, les risques d'arbitrages opportunistes en termes comptables et budgétaires et enfin les risques sur les finances publiques liées aux irréversibilités budgétaires induites et au renchérissement des coûts financiers.

This paper addresses the issue of favoritism at the design stage of complex procurement auctions. A local community of citizens wants to procure a complex good or project and lacks the ability to translate its preferences into operational technical specifications. This task is delegated to a public officer who may collude with one of the firms at the design stage of the procurement auction in exchange of a bribe. Assuming that it is prohibitively costly to provide a justification for many aspects, we investigate two simple accountability mechanisms that ask the public officer to justify one aspect of the project, with the threat of being punished if he fails: a random challenge mechanism and an alert-based mechanism that requires justifying one aspect on which the rivals of the winning contractor send a red ag. Relying on losing contractors enables the community to deter favoritism significantly more easily than the random challenge procedure as it allows to use information that is shared by potential contractors in the industry. The level of penalty needed to fully deter corruption is lower, independent of the complexity of the project and depends on the degree of differentiation within the industry. Below this threshold, favoritism occurs in some states of nature and we characterize and compare the different equilibrium patterns of corruption under both mechanisms.A more elaborate example suggests that the alert-based mechanism tends to lead to more standard specifications of projects.

This paper addresses the issue of favoritism at the design stage of complex procurement auctions. A local community of citizens wants to procure a complex good or project and lacks the ability to translate its preferences into operational technical specifications. This task is delegated to a public officer who may collude with one of the firms at the design stage of the procurement auction in exchange of a bribe. Assuming that it is prohibitively costly to provide a justification for many aspects, we investigate two simple accountability mechanisms that ask the public officer to justify one aspect of the project, with the threat of being punished if he fails: a random challenge mechanism and an alert-based mechanism that requires justifying one aspect on which the rivals of the winning contractor send a red ag. Relying on losing contractors enables the community to deter favoritism significantly more easily than the random challenge procedure as it allows to use information that is shared by potential contractors in the industry. The level of penalty needed to fully deter corruption is lower, independent of the complexity of the project and depends on the degree of differentiation within the industry. Below this threshold, favoritism occurs in some states of nature and we characterize and compare the different equilibrium patterns of corruption under both mechanisms.A more elaborate example suggests that the alert-based mechanism tends to lead to more standard specifications of projects.

This paper addresses the issue of favoritism at the design stage of complex procurement auctions. A local community of citizens wants to procure a complex good or project and lacks the ability to translate its preferences into operational technical specifications. This task is delegated to a public officer who may collude with one of the firms at the design stage of the procurement auction in exchange of a bribe. Assuming that it is prohibitively costly to provide a justification for many aspects, we investigate two simple accountability mechanisms that ask the public officer to justify one aspect of the project, with the threat of being punished if he fails: a random challenge mechanism and an alert-based mechanism that requires justifying one aspect on which the rivals of the winning contractor send a red ag. Relying on losing contractors enables the community to deter favoritism significantly more easily than the random challenge procedure as it allows to use information that is shared by potential contractors in the industry. The level of penalty needed to fully deter corruption is lower, independent of the complexity of the project and depends on the degree of differentiation within the industry. Below this threshold, favoritism occurs in some states of nature and we characterize and compare the different equilibrium patterns of corruption under both mechanisms.A more elaborate example suggests that the alert-based mechanism tends to lead to more standard specifications of projects.

This paper addresses the issue of favoritism at the design stage of complex procurement auctions. A local community of citizens wants to procure a complex good or project and lacks the ability to translate its preferences into operational technical specifications. This task is delegated to a public officer who may collude with one of the firms at the design stage of the procurement auction in exchange of a bribe. Assuming that it is prohibitively costly to provide a justification for many aspects, we investigate two simple accountability mechanisms that ask the public officer to justify one aspect of the project, with the threat of being punished if he fails: a random challenge mechanism and an alert-based mechanism that requires justifying one aspect on which the rivals of the winning contractor send a red ag. Relying on losing contractors enables the community to deter favoritism significantly more easily than the random challenge procedure as it allows to use information that is shared by potential contractors in the industry. The level of penalty needed to fully deter corruption is lower, independent of the complexity of the project and depends on the degree of differentiation within the industry. Below this threshold, favoritism occurs in some states of nature and we characterize and compare the different equilibrium patterns of corruption under both mechanisms.A more elaborate example suggests that the alert-based mechanism tends to lead to more standard specifications of projects.

This paper addresses the issue of favoritism at the design stage of complex procurement auctions. A local community of citizens wants to procure a complex good or project and lacks the ability to translate its preferences into operational technical specifications. This task is delegated to a public officer who may collude with one of the firms at the design stage of the procurement auction in exchange of a bribe. Assuming that it is prohibitively costly to provide a justification for many aspects, we investigate two simple accountability mechanisms that ask the public officer to justify one aspect of the project, with the threat of being punished if he fails: a random challenge mechanism and an alert-based mechanism that requires justifying one aspect on which the rivals of the winning contractor send a red ag. Relying on losing contractors enables the community to deter favoritism significantly more easily than the random challenge procedure as it allows to use information that is shared by potential contractors in the industry. The level of penalty needed to fully deter corruption is lower, independent of the complexity of the project and depends on the degree of differentiation within the industry. Below this threshold, favoritism occurs in some states of nature and we characterize and compare the different equilibrium patterns of corruption under both mechanisms.A more elaborate example suggests that the alert-based mechanism tends to lead to more standard specifications of projects.

This paper estimates trade barriers in government procurement, a market that accounts for 12% of world GDP. Using data from inter-country input-output tables in a gravity model, we find that home bias in government procurement is significantly higher than in trade between firms. However, this difference has been shrinking over time. Results also show that trade agreements with provisions on government procurement increase cross-border flows of services, whereas the effect on goods is small and not different from that in private markets. Provisions containing transparency and procedural requirements drive the liberalizing effect of trade agreements.

This paper estimates trade barriers in government procurement, a market that accounts for 12% of world GDP. Using data from inter-country input-output tables in a gravity model, we find that home bias in government procurement is significantly higher than in trade between firms. However, this difference has been shrinking over time. Results also show that trade agreements with provisions on government procurement increase cross-border flows of services, whereas the effect on goods is small and not different from that in private markets. Provisions containing transparency and procedural requirements drive the liberalizing effect of trade agreements.

In this paper, we investigate interaction between two firms, which are engaged in a repeated procurement relationship modelled as a multiple criteria auction, and an auctioneer (a government employee) who has discretion in devising the selection criteria. A first result is that, in a one-shot context, favoritism turns the asymmetric information (private cost) procurement auction into a symmetric information auction (in bribes) for a common value prize. In a repeated setting we show that favoritism substantially facilitates collusion. It increases the gains from collusion and contributes to solving basic implementation problems for a cartel of bidders that operates in a stochastically changing environment. A most simple allocation rule where firms take turn in winning independently of stochastic government preferences and firms'costs achieves full cartel efficiency including price, production and design efficiency. In each period the selection criteria is fine-tailored to the in-turn winner: the "environment" adapts to the cartel. This result holds true when the expected punishment is a fixed cost. When the cost varies with the magnitude of the distortion of the selection criteria (compared with the true government's preferences), favoritism only partially shades the cartel from the environment. We thus find that favoritism generally facilitates collusion at a high cost for society. Our analysis suggests some anti-corruption measures that can be effective to curb favoritism and collusion in public markets. It also shows that the rotation of officials is not one of them. ; Dans cet article nous explorons des interactions entre deux firmes, engagées sur un marché public alloué selon la règle du mieux disant et un agent gestionnaire du marché qui a du pouvoir sur la détermination du critère de sélection. Un premier résultat est que dans le cadre d'une interaction unique, le favoritisme transforme l'enchère à valeurs privées avec information asymétrique (sur les coûts) en une enchère (en pot-de-vin) avec information ...

In this paper, we investigate interaction between two firms, which are engaged in a repeated procurement relationship modelled as a multiple criteria auction, and an auctioneer (a government employee) who has discretion in devising the selection criteria. A first result is that, in a one-shot context, favoritism turns the asymmetric information (private cost) procurement auction into a symmetric information auction (in bribes) for a common value prize. In a repeated setting we show that favoritism substantially facilitates collusion. It increases the gains from collusion and contributes to solving basic implementation problems for a cartel of bidders that operates in a stochastically changing environment. A most simple allocation rule where firms take turn in winning independently of stochastic government preferences and firms'costs achieves full cartel efficiency including price, production and design efficiency. In each period the selection criteria is fine-tailored to the in-turn winner: the "environment" adapts to the cartel. This result holds true when the expected punishment is a fixed cost. When the cost varies with the magnitude of the distortion of the selection criteria (compared with the true government's preferences), favoritism only partially shades the cartel from the environment. We thus find that favoritism generally facilitates collusion at a high cost for society. Our analysis suggests some anti-corruption measures that can be effective to curb favoritism and collusion in public markets. It also shows that the rotation of officials is not one of them. ; Dans cet article nous explorons des interactions entre deux firmes, engagées sur un marché public alloué selon la règle du mieux disant et un agent gestionnaire du marché qui a du pouvoir sur la détermination du critère de sélection. Un premier résultat est que dans le cadre d'une interaction unique, le favoritisme transforme l'enchère à valeurs privées avec information asymétrique (sur les coûts) en une enchère (en pot-de-vin) avec information ...

In this paper, we investigate interaction between two firms, which are engaged in a repeated procurement relationship modelled as a multiple criteria auction, and an auctioneer (a government employee) who has discretion in devising the selection criteria. A first result is that, in a one-shot context, favoritism turns the asymmetric information (private cost) procurement auction into a symmetric information auction (in bribes) for a common value prize. In a repeated setting we show that favoritism substantially facilitates collusion. It increases the gains from collusion and contributes to solving basic implementation problems for a cartel of bidders that operates in a stochastically changing environment. A most simple allocation rule where firms take turn in winning independently of stochastic government preferences and firms'costs achieves full cartel efficiency including price, production and design efficiency. In each period the selection criteria is fine-tailored to the in-turn winner: the "environment" adapts to the cartel. This result holds true when the expected punishment is a fixed cost. When the cost varies with the magnitude of the distortion of the selection criteria (compared with the true government's preferences), favoritism only partially shades the cartel from the environment. We thus find that favoritism generally facilitates collusion at a high cost for society. Our analysis suggests some anti-corruption measures that can be effective to curb favoritism and collusion in public markets. It also shows that the rotation of officials is not one of them. ; Dans cet article nous explorons des interactions entre deux firmes, engagées sur un marché public alloué selon la règle du mieux disant et un agent gestionnaire du marché qui a du pouvoir sur la détermination du critère de sélection. Un premier résultat est que dans le cadre d'une interaction unique, le favoritisme transforme l'enchère à valeurs privées avec information asymétrique (sur les coûts) en une enchère (en pot-de-vin) avec information symétrique pour un objet de valeur commune. Dans le cadre d'une interaction répétée, nous montrons que le favoritisme facilite de façon substantielle les ententes anti-concurrentielles. Il augmente le gain de l'entente et contribue à résoudre certains problèmes fondamentaux de mise en oeuvre d'un cartel opérant dans un environnement qui change de manière aléatoire. Une règle de partage très simple permet de réaliser l'efficacité du cartel qui inclut, l'efficacité de prix, de production et de "design". Chaque période, le critère de sélection est "taillé sur mesure" pour la firme dont c'est le tour de gagner : l'environnement s'adapte au cartel. Ce résultat s'applique au cas de punition fixe pour favoritisme. Lorsque la punition varie avec l'étendue de la distorsion du critère de sélection (par rapport aux préférences publiques), le favoritisme protége partiellement le cartel des fluctuations de l'environnement. Nous trouvons que le favoritisme généralement facilite les ententes à un coût élevé pour la société. Notre analyse suggère certaines mesures anticorruption qui peuvent être très efficaces pour réduire l'étendue du favoritisme et des ententes. Elle montre aussi que la rotation des agents n'est pas une mesure efficace.

In this paper, we investigate interaction between two firms, which are engaged in a repeated procurement relationship modelled as a multiple criteria auction, and an auctioneer (a government employee) who has discretion in devising the selection criteria. A first result is that, in a one-shot context, favoritism turns the asymmetric information (private cost) procurement auction into a symmetric information auction (in bribes) for a common value prize. In a repeated setting we show that favoritism substantially facilitates collusion. It increases the gains from collusion and contributes to solving basic implementation problems for a cartel of bidders that operates in a stochastically changing environment. A most simple allocation rule where firms take turn in winning independently of stochastic government preferences and firms'costs achieves full cartel efficiency including price, production and design efficiency. In each period the selection criteria is fine-tailored to the in-turn winner: the "environment" adapts to the cartel. This result holds true when the expected punishment is a fixed cost. When the cost varies with the magnitude of the distortion of the selection criteria (compared with the true government's preferences), favoritism only partially shades the cartel from the environment. We thus find that favoritism generally facilitates collusion at a high cost for society. Our analysis suggests some anti-corruption measures that can be effective to curb favoritism and collusion in public markets. It also shows that the rotation of officials is not one of them. ; Dans cet article nous explorons des interactions entre deux firmes, engagées sur un marché public alloué selon la règle du mieux disant et un agent gestionnaire du marché qui a du pouvoir sur la détermination du critère de sélection. Un premier résultat est que dans le cadre d'une interaction unique, le favoritisme transforme l'enchère à valeurs privées avec information asymétrique (sur les coûts) en une enchère (en pot-de-vin) avec information symétrique pour un objet de valeur commune. Dans le cadre d'une interaction répétée, nous montrons que le favoritisme facilite de façon substantielle les ententes anti-concurrentielles. Il augmente le gain de l'entente et contribue à résoudre certains problèmes fondamentaux de mise en oeuvre d'un cartel opérant dans un environnement qui change de manière aléatoire. Une règle de partage très simple permet de réaliser l'efficacité du cartel qui inclut, l'efficacité de prix, de production et de "design". Chaque période, le critère de sélection est "taillé sur mesure" pour la firme dont c'est le tour de gagner : l'environnement s'adapte au cartel. Ce résultat s'applique au cas de punition fixe pour favoritisme. Lorsque la punition varie avec l'étendue de la distorsion du critère de sélection (par rapport aux préférences publiques), le favoritisme protége partiellement le cartel des fluctuations de l'environnement. Nous trouvons que le favoritisme généralement facilite les ententes à un coût élevé pour la société. Notre analyse suggère certaines mesures anticorruption qui peuvent être très efficaces pour réduire l'étendue du favoritisme et des ententes. Elle montre aussi que la rotation des agents n'est pas une mesure efficace.

An increasing number of OECD countries has adopted measures to encourage the use of public procurement to foster innovation. However, implementation of public procurement of innovation (PPI) is lagging behind policy discourse. The ambition of this dissertation is to address this discrepancy by assisting in the design of PPI initiatives, that is, by identifying the innovation-related failures that PPI can overcome, and the most appropriate policy instruments and practices for achieving this objective. We define eight PPI ideal-types according to the type of meso-level market of system failures they address. These failures can relate to users, producers or to their mutual interactions. We confront them with macro-level failures, and determine accordingly the contribution of each PPI ideal-type to distinct mission-oriented policies. Our typology provides a unified PPI framework associating their rationales with their design. Therefore, it contributes to policymaking, and to policy evaluation and analysis. Some PPI categories aim to spur innovation by stimulating the formation of markets. We employ an evolutionary approach to analyse the influence of PPI at the different stages of the dynamic process of market formation through a series of selected existing case studies. We demonstrate that PPI can underpin the different phases of knowledge coordination for market formation, by ensuring appropriate interactions between users and producers early in the public procurement procedure. The literature on private procurement nevertheless shows that early supplier involvement is subject to a number of micro-level failures having their root in procurement practices. Based on interviews with public procurers and suppliers, we identify relevant collaboration failures related to the standard PPI and competitive dialogue procedures. We highlight differences in these failures and their loci between the two procedures. Furthermore, public procurers and suppliers appear to have different perception of the causes of the failures ...