Public Procurement and Very Private Benefits

In every national budget, there is a part calledamounts go through a tedious, multi-phase
"Public Procurement". This is the portion of thetendering process. Public competitive bidding is not
budget allocated to purchasing services and goodscorruption-proof: many times officials and bidders
for the various ministries, authorities and othercollude and conspire to award the contract against
arms of the executive branch. It was the famousbribes and other, noncash, benefits. But we still
management consultant, Parkinson, who onceknow of no better way to minimize the effects
wrote that government officials are likely toof human greed.Procurement policies, procedures
approve a multi-billion dollar nuclear power plantand tenders are supervised by state auditing
much more speedily that they are likely toauthorities. The most famous is, probably, the
authorize a hundred dollar expenditure on a bicycleGeneral Accounting Office, known by its acronym:
parking device. This is because everyone camethe GAO.It is an unrelenting, very thorough and
across 100 dollar situations in real life - butdangerous watchdog of the administration. It is
precious few had the fortune to expend withconsidered to be highly effective in reducing
billions of USD.This, precisely, is the problem withprocurement - related irregularities and crimes.
public procurement: people are too acquaintedAnother such institutions the Israeli State Reviser.
with the purchased items. They tend to confuseWhat is common to both these organs of the
their daily, household-type, decisions with thestate is that they have very broad authority.
processes and considerations which shouldThey possess (by law) judicial and criminal
permeate governmental decision making. Theyprosecution powers and they exercise it without
label perfectly legitimate decisions as "corrupt" -any hesitation. They have the legal obligation to
and totally corrupt procedures as "legal" or merelyreview the operations and financial transactions of
"legitimate", because this is what was decreed byall the other organs of the executive branch. Their
the statal mechanisms, or because "this is theteams select, each year, the organs to be
law".Procurement is divided to defence andreviewed and audited. They collect all pertinent
non-defence spending. In both these categories -documents and correspondence. They cross the
but, especially in the former - there are grave,information that they receive from elsewhere.
well founded, concerns that things might not be allThey ask very embarrassing questions and they
what they seem to be.Government - from India'sdo it under the threat of perjury prosecutions.
to Sweden's to Belgium's - fell because ofThey summon witnesses and they publish
procurement scandals which involved bribes paiddamning reports which, in many cases, lead to
by manufacturers or service providers either tocriminal prosecutions.Another form of review of
individual in the service of the state or to politicalpublic procurement is through powers granted to
parties. Other, lesser cases, litter the press daily.the legislative arm of the state (Congress,
In the last few years only, the burgeoningParliament, Bundestag, or Knesset). In almost
defence sector in Israel saw two such bigevery country in the world, the elected body has
scandals: the developer of Israel's missiles wasits own procurement oversight committee. It
involved in one (and currently is serving a jailsupervises the expenditures of the executive
sentence) and Israel's military attache tobranch and makes sure that they conform to the
Washington was implicated - though, neverbudget. The difference between such supervisory,
convicted - in yet another.But the picture is notparliamentary, bodies and their executive branch
that grim. Most governments in the Westcounterparts - is that they feel free to criticize
succeeded in reigning in and fully controlling thispublic procurement not only in the context of its
particular budget item. In the USA, this part of theadherence to budget constraints or its cleanliness
budget remained constant in the last 35(!) years- but also in a political context. In other words,
at 20% of the GDP.There are many problemsthese committees do not limit themselves to
with public procurement. It is an obscure area ofasking HOW - but also engage in asking WHY.
state activity, agreed upon in "customized"Why this specific expense in this given time and
tenders and in dark rooms through a series oflocation - and not that expense, somewhere else
undisclosed agreements. At least, this is the publicor some other time. These elected bodies feel at
image of these expenditures.The truth isliberty - and often do - intervene in the very
completely different.True, some ministers usedecision making process and in the order of
public money to build their private "empires". Itpriorities. They have the propensity to alter both
could be a private business empire, catering toquite often.The most famous such committee is,
the financial future of the minister, his cronies andarguably, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
his relatives. These two plagues - cronyism andIt is famous because it is non-partisan and
nepotism - haunt public procurement. The spectretechnocratic in nature. It is really made of experts
of government official using public money towhich staff its offices.Its apparent - and real -
benefit their political allies or their family membersneutrality makes its judgements and
- haunts public imagination and provokes publicrecommendations a commandment not to be
indignation.Then, there are problems of plainavoided and, almost universally, to be obeyed.
corruption: bribes or commissions paid to decisionThe CBO operates for and on behalf of the
makers in return for winning tenders or awardingAmerican Congress and is, really, the research
of economic benefits financed by the publicarm of that venerable parliament. Parallelly, the
money. Again, sometimes these moneys end inexecutive part of the American system - the
secret bank accounts in Switzerland or inAdministration - has its own guard against waste
Luxembourg. At other times, they finance politicaland worse: the Office of Management and Budget
activities of political parties. This was rampantly(OMB).Both bodies produce learned, thickset,
abundant in Italy and has its place in France. Theanalyses, reports, criticism, opinions and
USA, which was considered to be immune fromrecommendations. Despite quite a prodigious
such behaviours - has proven to be less so, lately,annual output of verbiage - they are so highly
with the Bill Clinton alleged election financingregarded, that virtually anything that they say (or
transgressions.But, these, with all due respect towrite) is minutely analysed and implemented to
"clean hands" operations and principles, are not thethe last letter with an air of awe.Only a few other
main problems of public procurement.The firstparliaments have committees that carry such
order problem is the allocation of scarceweight. The Israeli Knesset have the extremely
resources. In other words, prioritizing. The needspowerful Finance Committee which is in charge of
are enormous and ever growing. The USall matters financial, from appropriations to
government purchases hundreds of thousands ofprocurement. Another parliament renowned for its
separate items from outside suppliers. Just the listtight scrutiny is the French Parliament - though it
of these goods - not to mention their technicalretains very few real powers.But not all countries
specifications and the documentation whichchose the option of legislative supervision. Some
accompanies the transactions - occupies tens ofof them relegated parts or all of these functions
thick volumes. Supercomputers are used toto the executive arm.In Japan, the Ministry of
manage all these - and, even so, it is getting wayFinance still scrutinizes (and has to authorize) the
out of hand. How to allocate ever scarcersmallest expense, using an army of clerks. These
resources amongst these items is a daunting -clerks became so powerful that they have the
close to impossible - task. It also, of course, has atheoretical potential to secure and extort benefits
political dimension. A procurement decision reflectsstemming from the very position that they hold.
a political preference and priority. But the decisionMany of them suspiciously join companies and
itself is not always motivated by rational - letorganizations which they supervised or to which
alone noble - arguments. More often, it is the bythey awarded contracts - immediately after they
product and end result of lobbying, political handleave their previous, government, positions. The
bending and extortionist muscle. This raises a lotMinistry of Finance is subject to a major reform
of hackles among those who feel that were keptin the reform-bent government of Prime Minister
out of the pork barrel. They feel underprivilegedHashimoto. The Japanese establishment finally
and discriminated against. They fight back and therealized that too much supervision, control,
whole system finds itself in a quagmire, aauditing and prosecution powers might be a
nightmare of conflicting interests. Last year, thePyrrhic victory: it might encourage corruption -
whole budget in the USA was stuck - notrather than discourage it.Britain opted to keep the
approved by Congress - because of thesediscretion to use public funds and the clout that
reactions and counter-reactions.The secondcomes with it in the hands of the political level.
problem is the supervision, auditing and control ofThis is a lot like the relationship between the
actual spending. This has two dimensions:How tobutter and the cat left to guard it. Still, this
make sure that the expenditures match and doidiosyncratic British arrangement works surprisingly
not exceed the budgetary items. In somewell. All public procurement and expenditure items
countries, this is a mere ritual formality andare approved by the EDX Committee of the
government departments are positively expectedBritish Cabinet (=inner, influential, circle of
to overstep their procurement budgets. In others,government) which is headed by the Ministry of
this constitutes a criminal offence.How to preventFinance. Even this did not prove enough to
the criminally corrupt activities that we haverestrain the appetites of Ministers, especially as
described above - or even the non criminalquid pro quo deals quickly developed. So, now the
incompetent acts which government officials areword is that the new Labour Prime Minister will
prone to do.The most widespread method is thechair it- enabling him to exert his personal
public, competitive, tender for the purchases ofauthority on matters of public money.Britain,
goods and services.But, this is not as simple as itunder the previous, Tory, government also
sounds.Some countries publish internationalpioneered an interesting and controversial
tenders, striving to secure the best quality in theincentive system for its public servants as top
cheapest price - no matter what is itsgovernment officials are euphemistically called
geographical or political source. Other countries arethere. They receive, added to their salaries, a
much more protectionist (notably: Japan andportion of the savings that they effect in their
France) and they publish only domestic tenders, indepartmental budgets. This means that they get
most cases. A domestic tender is open only toa small fraction of the end of the fiscal year
domestic bidders. Yet other countries limitdifference between their budget allowances and
participation in the tenders on variouswhat they actually spent. This is very useful in
backgrounds: the size of the competing company,certain segments of government activity - but
its track record, its ownership structure, itscould prove very problematic in others. Imagine
human rights or environmental record and so on.health officials saving on medicines, or others
Some countries publish the minutes of the tendersaving on road maintenance or educational
committee (which has to explain WHY it selectedconsumables. This, naturally, will not do.Needless to
this or that supplier). Others keep it a closelysay that no country officially approves of the
guarded secret ("to protect commercial interestspayment of bribes or commission to officials in
and secrets").But all countries state in advancecharge of public spending, however remote the
that they have no obligation to accept any kind ofconnection is between the payment and the
offer - even if it is the cheapest. This is a neededactions.Yet, law aside many countries accept the
provision: the cheapest is not necessarily the best.intertwining of elites - business and political - as a
The cheapest offer could be coming from a veryfact of life, albeit a sad one. Many judicial systems
unreliable supplier with a bad past performance orin the world even make a difference between a
a criminal record or from a supplier who offerspayment which is not connected to an identifiable
goods of shoddy quality.The tendering policies ofor discernible benefit and those that are. The
most of the countries in the world alsolatter - and only the latter - are labelled
incorporates a second principle: that of "minimum"bribery".Where there is money - there is
size". The cost of running a tender is prohibitive inwrongdoing. Humans are humans - and sometimes
the cases of purchases in small amounts.Even ifnot even that.But these unfortunate derivatives
there is corruption in such purchases it is bound toof social activity can be minimized by the adoption
cause less damage to the public purse than theof clear procurement policies, transparent and
costs of the tender which is supposed to preventpublic decision making processes and the right mix
it!So, in most countries, small purchases can beof supervision, auditing and prosecution. Even then
authorized by government officials - largerthe result is bound to be dubious, at best.