The Efficiency of Applying Preferential Regimes for Small-Sized Businesses in Public Procurement
https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2024-18-3-138-147
Abstract
This study examines the efficiency of preferential procurement regimes for small-sized businesses (SBs) in Russia, using the example of assessing the results of increased procurement standards. The results of statistical and econometric analysis show a rather moderate increase in SB participation in procurement after increasing the standard. At the same time, the overall volume of purchases from SBs remains significantly lower than the standard. It also turns out that savings on purchases from SBs are greater than on other purchases, and this effect persists after increasing the standard, benefiting the state. In this context, it is necessary to strengthen control over the implementation of procurement standards for SBs and to expand the use of best practices in procurement procedures.
Keywords
public procurement,
government purchases,
small-sized business,
preferential treatment,
transparency,
competition
Supporting agencies: The article is based on the results of research carried out at the expense of budgetary funds under the state assignment to the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
About the Author
E. O. Matveev
Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgenii O. Matveev — Research Associate, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Moscow
References
1. Loader K. The challenge of competitive procurement: Value for money versus small business support. Public Money & Management. 2007;27(5):307–314. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–9302.2007.00601.x
2. Michaelis C., McGuire M., Ferguson L. SBS diversity in public sector procurement survey: Final report. Birmingham: Databuild Ltd; 2003. 50 p. URL: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090609003228/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file38294.pdf
3. Walker H., Preuss L. Fostering sustainability through sourcing from small businesses: Public sector perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2008;16(15):1600–1609. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.014
4. Smith P., Hobbs A. SMEs and public sector procurement. Research report prepared for the Small Business Service. London: Shreeveport Management Consultancy; 2002.
5. Glover A. Accelerating the SME economic engine: Through transparent, simple and strategic procurement. London: HM Treasury; 2008. 76 p. URL: https://sites.telfer.uottawa.ca/womensenterprise/files/2014/06/Procurement-Glover-Review_Eng.pdf
6. Uyarra E., Flanagan K. Understanding the innovation impacts of public procurement. European Planning Studies. 2010;18(1):123–143. DOI: 10.1080/09654310903343567
7. Erridge A., Fee R. Involvement of SMEs in public procurement. The Public Procurement Law Review. 1998;2:37–51.
8. Erridge A., Hennigan S. Sustainable procurement in health and social care in Northern Ireland. Public Money & Management. 2012;32(5):363–370. DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2012.703422
9. Pickernell D., Kay A., Packham G., Miller C. Competing agendas in public procurement: An empirical analysis of opportunities and limits in the UK for SMEs. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 2011;29(4):641– 658. DOI: 10.1068/c10164b
10. Loader K. Supporting SMEs through government purchasing activity. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 2005;6(1):17–26. DOI: 10.5367/0000000053026383
11. Bovis C. Public procurement and small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. London: Chartered Association of Certified Accountants; 1996.
12. Withey J.J. Small manufacturing businesses: Their interest in securing contracts from public agencies. Journal of Public Procurement. 2011;11(3):388–402. DOI: 10.1108/JOPP-11–03–2011-B004
13. Clark III M., Moutray C. The future of small businesses in the US federal government marketplace. Journal of Public Procurement. 2004;4(3):450–470. DOI: 10.1108/JOPP-04–03–2004-B006
14. Nakabayashi J. Small business set-asides in procurement auctions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Economics. 2013;100:28–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.01.003
15. Krasnokutskaya E., Seim K. Bid preference programs and participation in highway procurement auctions. American Economic Review. 2011;101(6):2653–2686. DOI: 10.1257/aer.101.6.2653
16. Marion J. Are bid preferences benign? The effect of small business subsidies in highway procurement auctions. Journal of Public Economics. 2007;91(7–8):1591–1624. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.12.005
17. Timmermans B., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia J.M. Coordinated unbundling: A way to stimulate entrepreneurship through public procurement for innovation. Science and Public Policy. 2013;40(5):674–685. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/sct023
18. Glas A.H., Eßig M. Factors that influence the success of small and medium-sized suppliers in public procurement: Evidence from a centralized agency in Germany. Supply Chain Management. 2018;23(1):65–78. DOI: 10.1108/SCM-09–2016–0334
19. Hoekman B., Taş B.K.O. Procurement policy and SME participation in public purchasing. Small Business Economics. 2022;58(1):383–402. DOI: 10.1007/s11187–020–00414-z
20. Belev S., Veterinarov V., Matveev Е. Vertical collusion in public procurement: Estimation based on data for R&D composite auctions. Zhurnal Novoi ekonomicheskoi assotsiatsii = Journal of the New Economic Association. 2023;(2):36–63. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31737/22212264_2023_2_36–63
Review
For citations:
Matveev E.O. The Efficiency of Applying Preferential Regimes for Small-Sized Businesses in Public Procurement. The world of new economy. 2024;18(3):138-147. https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2024-18-3-138-147
Views:
165
Email this article 