The role of discretion in public procurement has been the subject of wide debate in regulation literature and practice. Greater discretion potentially may allow for greater efficiency in procurement. However, when social capital and institutional quality are low, more discretion can easily open the door to bribery and corruption. In this paper, adopting a semiparametric approach and using a large dataset of public works managed by Italian municipalities, we empirically assess the effects of a reform in the regulation of public works in Italy, approved in 2011, that has increased the discretion of bureaucrats in the choice of the firms. The results provide evidence that the reform has exerted a positive, although mild, effect on the performance of public works execution. However, the positive role of the reform is more relevant in those areas where the effect of public service norms and prosocial behaviors are higher.
AlfanoV.ErcolanoS.. 2021. “Social Capital, Quality of Institutions and Lockdown. Evidence from Italian Provinces.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics59: 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.08.001
AncaraniA.GuccioC.RizzoI.. 2016. “An Empirical Assessment of the Role of Firms’ Qualification in Public Contracts Execution.” Journal of Public Procurement16: 554–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-16-04-2016-B006
4.
BădinL.DaraioC.SimarL.. 2014. “Explaining Inefficiency in Nonparametric Production Models: The State of the Art.” Annals of Operations Research214 (1): 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1173-7
5.
BajariP.McMillanR.TadelisS.. 2009. “Auctions Versus Negotiations in Procurement: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization25: 372–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewn002
6.
BaldiS.BottassoA.ContiM.PiccardoC.. 2016. “To Bid or Not to Bid: That is the Question: Public Procurement, Project Complexity and Corruption.” European Journal of Political Economy43: 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.04.002
7.
BaltrunaiteA.GiorgiantonioC.MocettiS.OrlandoT.. 2021. “Discretion and Supplier Selection in Public Procurement.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization37 (1): 134–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewaa009
8.
BandieraO.PratA.VallettiT.. 2009. “Active and Passive Waste in Government Spending: Evidence from a Policy Experiment.” The American Economic Review99: 1278–308. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.4.1278
9.
BartscherA. K.SeitzS.SieglochS.SlotwinskiM.WehrhöferN.. 2021. “Social Capital and the Spread of COVID-19: Insights from European Countries.” Journal of Health Economics80: 102531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2021.102531
10.
Bosio, E., Djankov, S., Glaeser, E., & Shleifer, A. 2022. “Public procurement in law and practice.” American Economic Review 112(4), 1091–1117.http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20200738
11.
CarrilR.2021. Rules versus discretion in public procurement. GSE, Graduate School of Economics, Working Paper Series, n° 1232, Barcelona, Spain.
12.
CartocciR.2007. Mappe del tesoro. Bologna: Il Mulino.
13.
CavalieriM.CristaudoR.GuccioC.. 2019. “Tales on the Dark Side of the Transport Infrastructure Provision: A Systematic Literature Review of the Determinants of Cost Overruns.” Transport Reviews39 (6): 774–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1636895
14.
CavalieriM.GuccioC.LisiD.RizzoI.. 2020. “Does Institutional Quality Matter for Infrastructure Provision? A Non-parametric Analysis for Italian Municipalities.” Italian Economic Journal6 (3): 521–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-019-00111-1
15.
CavalieriM.GuccioC.RizzoI.. 2017. “On the Role of Environmental Corruption in Healthcare Infrastructures: An Empirical Assessment for Italy Using DEA with Truncated Regression Approach.” Health Policy121 (5): 515–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.02.011
16.
CavalieriM.GuccioC.RizzoI.. 2018. “Does Corruption and the Institutional Characteristics of the Contracting Authorities Affect the Execution of Healthcare Infrastructures? An Empirical Investigation for Italy.” Journal of Public Procurement. 18(2): 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-06-2018-010
17.
CharnesA.CooperW. W.RhodesE.. 1978. “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.” European Journal of Operational Research2: 429–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
18.
CharronN.DijkstraL.LapuenteV.. 2014. “Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government within European Union Member States.” Regional Studies48 (1): 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.770141
19.
CharronN.LapuenteV.AnnoniP.. 2019. “Measuring Quality of Government in EU Regions Across Space and Time.” Papers in Regional Science98 (5): 1925–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12437
20.
CovielloD.GagliarducciS.. 2017. “Tenure in Office and Public Procurement.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy9 (3): 59–105. http://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20150426
21.
CovielloD.GuglielmoA.SpagnoloG.. 2018. “The Effect of Discretion on Procurement Performance.” Management Science64: 715–38. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2628
22.
Debreu, G. 1951. “The coefficient of resource utilization.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 19(3): 273–292.https://doi.org/10.2307/1906814
23.
DecarolisF.FismanR.PinottiP.VannutelliS.. 2020. Rules, discretion, and corruption in procurement: Evidence from Italian government contracting (No. w28209). National Bureau of Economic Research.
DufloE.GreenstoneM.PandeR.RyanN.. 2014. The value of regulatory discretion: Estimates from environmental inspections in India (No. w20590). National Bureau of Economic Research.
26.
DuranteR.GuisoL.GulinoG.. 2021. “Asocial Capital: Civic Culture and Social Distancing During COVID-19.” Journal of Public Economics194: 104342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104342
27.
EstacheA.IimiA.RuzzierC.. 2009. Procurement in infrastructure. What does theory tell us? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4994. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
28.
FarrellM. J.1957. “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency.” Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series A120: 253–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100
29.
Finocchiaro CastroM.GuccioC.. 2020. “Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Trust in Government, Political Selection, and Electoral Punishment.” Public Choice184 (3): 263–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00759-4
30.
Finocchiaro CastroM.GuccioC.PignataroG.RizzoI.. 2018. “Is Competition Able to Counteract the Inefficiency of Corruption? The Case of Italian Public Works.” Economia e Politica Industriale45 (1): 55–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-017-0086-5
31.
Finocchiaro CastroM.GuccioC.RizzoI.. 2014. “An Assessment of the Waste Effects of Corruption on Infrastructure Provision through Bootstrapped DEA Approach.” International Tax Public Finance21: 813–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-014-9312-5
32.
FlyvbergB.2005. Policy and planning for large infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3781, World Bank, Washington, DC.
GuccioC.LisiD.RizzoI.. 2019. “When the Purchasing Officer Looks the Other Way: On the Waste Effects of Debauched Local Environment in Public Works Execution.” Economics of Governance20 (3): 205–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-019-00223-5
35.
GuccioC.PignataroG.RizzoI.. 2012. “Measuring the Efficient Management of Public Works Contracts: A Non-parametric Approach.” Journal of Public Procurement12 (4): 528–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-12-04-2012-B003
36.
GuccioC.PignataroG.RizzoI.. 2014a. “Evaluating the Efficiency of Public Procurement Contracts for Cultural Heritage Conservation Works in Italy.” Journal of Cultural Economics38 (1): 43–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-012-9194-2
37.
GuccioC.PignataroG.RizzoI.. 2014b. “Decentralization and Public Works Procurement in Italy.” L'industria35 (4): 671–96. http://doi.org/10.1430/78942
38.
GuisoL.SapienzaP.ZingalesL.. 2004. “The Role of Social Capital in Financial Development.” American Economic Review94 (3): 526–56. http://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041464498
39.
GuisoL.SapienzaP.ZingalesL.. 2016. “Long-term Persistence.” Journal of the European Economic Association14 (6): 1401–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12177
40.
KelmanS.1990. Procurement and Public Management: The Fear of Discretion and the Quality of Government Performance. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
41.
KelmanS.2005. Unleashing Change: A Study of Organizational Renewal in Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42.
NanniciniT.StellaA.TabelliniG.TroianoU.. 2013. “Social Capital and Political Accountability.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy5 (2): 222–50. http://doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.2.222
PalgutaJ.PertoldF.. 2017. “Manipulation of Procurement Contracts: Evidence from the Introduction of Discretionary Thresholds.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy9 (2): 293–315. http://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20150511
46.
SimarL.WilsonP.. 1998. “Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models.” Management Science44: 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.1.49
47.
SimarL.WilsonP. W.. 2000. “Statistical Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: The State of the Art.” Journal of Productivity Analysis13 (1): 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007864806704
48.
SimarL.WilsonP.. 2007. “Estimation and Inference in Two-stage, Semi-parametric Models of Production Processes.” Journal of Econometrics136 (1): 31–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.07.009
49.
SimarL.WilsonP.. 2008. “Statistical Inference in Nonparametric Frontier Models: Recent Developments and Perspectives.” In The Measurement of Productive Efficiency and Productivity Growth, edited by FriedH. O.Knox LovellC. A.SchmidtS. S., 421–521. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
TabelliniG.2010. “Culture and Institutions: Economic Development in the Regions of Europe.” Journal of the European Economic Association8 (4): 677–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2010.tb00537.x
52.
WilsonP. W.2008. “FEAR: A Software Package for Frontier Efficiency Analysis with R.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences42 (4): 247–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2007.02.001
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
