Public Procurement and Very Private Benefits

In every national budget, there is a part called "Publicamounts go through a tedious, multi-phase tendering
Procurement". This is the portion of the budgetprocess. Public competitive bidding is not
allocated to purchasing services and goods for thecorruption-proof: many times officials and bidders
various ministries, authorities and other arms of thecollude and conspire to award the contract against
executive branch. It was the famous managementbribes and other, noncash, benefits. But we still know
consultant, Parkinson, who once wrote thatof no better way to minimize the effects of human
government officials are likely to approve agreed.Procurement policies, procedures and tenders
multi-billion dollar nuclear power plant much moreare supervised by state auditing authorities. The most
speedily that they are likely to authorize a hundredfamous is, probably, the General Accounting Office,
dollar expenditure on a bicycle parking device. This isknown by its acronym: the GAO.It is an unrelenting,
because everyone came across 100 dollar situationsvery thorough and dangerous watchdog of the
in real life - but precious few had the fortune toadministration. It is considered to be highly effective
expend with billions of USD.This, precisely, is thein reducing procurement - related irregularities and
problem with public procurement: people are toocrimes. Another such institutions the Israeli State
acquainted with the purchased items. They tend toReviser. What is common to both these organs of
confuse their daily, household-type, decisions with thethe state is that they have very broad authority.
processes and considerations which should permeateThey possess (by law) judicial and criminal
governmental decision making. They label perfectlyprosecution powers and they exercise it without any
legitimate decisions as "corrupt" - and totally corrupthesitation. They have the legal obligation to review
procedures as "legal" or merely "legitimate", becausethe operations and financial transactions of all the
this is what was decreed by the statal mechanisms,other organs of the executive branch. Their teams
or because "this is the law".Procurement is divided toselect, each year, the organs to be reviewed and
defence and non-defence spending. In both theseaudited. They collect all pertinent documents and
categories - but, especially in the former - there arecorrespondence. They cross the information that
grave, well founded, concerns that things might notthey receive from elsewhere. They ask very
be all what they seem to be.Government - fromembarrassing questions and they do it under the
India's to Sweden's to Belgium's - fell because ofthreat of perjury prosecutions. They summon
procurement scandals which involved bribes paid bywitnesses and they publish damning reports which, in
manufacturers or service providers either to individualmany cases, lead to criminal prosecutions.Another
in the service of the state or to political parties.form of review of public procurement is through
Other, lesser cases, litter the press daily. In the lastpowers granted to the legislative arm of the state
few years only, the burgeoning defence sector in(Congress, Parliament, Bundestag, or Knesset). In
Israel saw two such big scandals: the developer ofalmost every country in the world, the elected body
Israel's missiles was involved in one (and currently ishas its own procurement oversight committee. It
serving a jail sentence) and Israel's military attache tosupervises the expenditures of the executive branch
Washington was implicated - though, never convictedand makes sure that they conform to the budget.
- in yet another.But the picture is not that grim. MostThe difference between such supervisory,
governments in the West succeeded in reigning inparliamentary, bodies and their executive branch
and fully controlling this particular budget item. In thecounterparts - is that they feel free to criticize public
USA, this part of the budget remained constant inprocurement not only in the context of its adherence
the last 35(!) years at 20% of the GDP.There areto budget constraints or its cleanliness - but also in a
many problems with public procurement. It is anpolitical context. In other words, these committees
obscure area of state activity, agreed upon indo not limit themselves to asking HOW - but also
"customized" tenders and in dark rooms through aengage in asking WHY. Why this specific expense in
series of undisclosed agreements. At least, this is thethis given time and location - and not that expense,
public image of these expenditures.The truth issomewhere else or some other time. These elected
completely different.True, some ministers use publicbodies feel at liberty - and often do - intervene in the
money to build their private "empires". It could be avery decision making process and in the order of
private business empire, catering to the financialpriorities. They have the propensity to alter both
future of the minister, his cronies and his relatives.quite often.The most famous such committee is,
These two plagues - cronyism and nepotism - hauntarguably, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is
public procurement. The spectre of governmentfamous because it is non-partisan and technocratic in
official using public money to benefit their political alliesnature. It is really made of experts which staff its
or their family members - haunts public imaginationoffices.Its apparent - and real - neutrality makes its
and provokes public indignation.Then, there arejudgements and recommendations a commandment
problems of plain corruption: bribes or commissionsnot to be avoided and, almost universally, to be
paid to decision makers in return for winning tendersobeyed. The CBO operates for and on behalf of the
or awarding of economic benefits financed by theAmerican Congress and is, really, the research arm of
public money. Again, sometimes these moneys end inthat venerable parliament. Parallelly, the executive
secret bank accounts in Switzerland or inpart of the American system - the Administration -
Luxembourg. At other times, they finance politicalhas its own guard against waste and worse: the
activities of political parties. This was rampantlyOffice of Management and Budget (OMB).Both bodies
abundant in Italy and has its place in France. Theproduce learned, thickset, analyses, reports, criticism,
USA, which was considered to be immune from suchopinions and recommendations. Despite quite a
behaviours - has proven to be less so, lately, withprodigious annual output of verbiage - they are so
the Bill Clinton alleged election financinghighly regarded, that virtually anything that they say
transgressions.But, these, with all due respect to(or write) 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 first orderparliaments have committees that carry such weight.
problem is the allocation of scarce resources. In otherThe Israeli Knesset have the extremely powerful
words, prioritizing. The needs are enormous and everFinance Committee which is in charge of all matters
growing. The US government purchases hundreds offinancial, from appropriations to procurement. Another
thousands of separate items from outside suppliers.parliament renowned for its tight scrutiny is the
Just the list of these goods - not to mention theirFrench Parliament - though it retains very few real
technical specifications and the documentation whichpowers.But not all countries chose the option of
accompanies the transactions - occupies tens of thicklegislative supervision. Some of them relegated parts
volumes. Supercomputers are used to manage allor all of these functions to the executive arm.In
these - and, even so, it is getting way out of hand.Japan, the Ministry of Finance still scrutinizes (and has
How to allocate ever scarcer resources amongstto authorize) the smallest expense, using an army of
these items is a daunting - close to impossible - task.clerks. These clerks became so powerful that they
It also, of course, has a political dimension. Ahave the theoretical potential to secure and extort
procurement decision reflects a political preferencebenefits stemming from the very position that they
and priority. But the decision itself is not alwayshold. Many of them suspiciously join companies and
motivated by rational - let alone noble - arguments.organizations which they supervised or to which they
More often, it is the by product and end result ofawarded contracts - immediately after they leave
lobbying, political hand bending and extortionist muscle.their previous, government, positions. The Ministry of
This raises a lot of hackles among those who feelFinance is subject to a major reform in the
that were kept out of the pork barrel. They feelreform-bent government of Prime Minister Hashimoto.
underprivileged and discriminated against. They fightThe Japanese establishment finally realized that too
back and the whole system finds itself in a quagmire,much supervision, control, auditing and prosecution
a nightmare of conflicting interests. Last year, thepowers might be a Pyrrhic victory: it might encourage
whole budget in the USA was stuck - not approvedcorruption - rather than discourage it.Britain opted to
by Congress - because of these reactions andkeep the discretion to use public funds and the clout
counter-reactions.The second problem is thethat comes with it in the hands of the political level.
supervision, auditing and control of actual spending.This is a lot like the relationship between the butter
This has two dimensions:How to make sure that theand the cat left to guard it. Still, this idiosyncratic
expenditures match and do not exceed theBritish arrangement works surprisingly well. All public
budgetary items. In some countries, this is a mereprocurement and expenditure items are approved by
ritual formality and government departments arethe EDX Committee of the British Cabinet (=inner,
positively expected to overstep their procurementinfluential, circle of government) which is headed by
budgets. In others, this constitutes a criminalthe Ministry of Finance. Even this did not prove
offence.How to prevent the criminally corruptenough to restrain the appetites of Ministers,
activities that we have described above - or evenespecially as quid pro quo deals quickly developed. So,
the non criminal incompetent acts which governmentnow the word is that the new Labour Prime Minister
officials are prone to do.The most widespreadwill chair it- enabling him to exert his personal
method is the public, competitive, tender for theauthority on matters of public money.Britain, under
purchases of goods and services.But, this is not asthe previous, Tory, government also pioneered an
simple as it sounds.Some countries publish internationalinteresting and controversial incentive system for its
tenders, striving to secure the best quality in thepublic servants as top government officials are
cheapest price - no matter what is its geographical oreuphemistically called there. They receive, added to
political source. Other countries are much moretheir salaries, a portion of the savings that they
protectionist (notably: Japan and France) and theyeffect in their departmental budgets. This means that
publish only domestic tenders, in most cases. Athey get a small fraction of the end of the fiscal year
domestic tender is open only to domestic bidders.difference between their budget allowances and
Yet other countries limit participation in the tenderswhat they actually spent. This is very useful in certain
on various backgrounds: the size of the competingsegments of government activity - but could prove
company, its track record, its ownership structure, itsvery problematic in others. Imagine health officials
human rights or environmental record and so on.saving on medicines, or others saving on road
Some countries publish the minutes of the tendermaintenance or educational consumables. This,
committee (which has to explain WHY it selected thisnaturally, will not do.Needless to say that no country
or that supplier). Others keep it a closely guardedofficially approves of the payment of bribes or
secret ("to protect commercial interests andcommission to officials in charge of public spending,
secrets").But all countries state in advance that theyhowever remote the connection is between the
have no obligation to accept any kind of offer - evenpayment and the actions.Yet, law aside many
if it is the cheapest. This is a needed provision: thecountries accept the intertwining of elites - business
cheapest is not necessarily the best. The cheapestand political - as a fact of life, albeit a sad one. Many
offer could be coming from a very unreliable supplierjudicial systems in the world even make a difference
with a bad past performance or a criminal record orbetween a payment which is not connected to an
from a supplier who offers goods of shoddyidentifiable or discernible benefit and those that are.
quality.The tendering policies of most of the countriesThe latter - and only the latter - are labelled
in the world also incorporates a second principle: that"bribery".Where there is money - there is wrongdoing.
of "minimum size". The cost of running a tender isHumans are humans - and sometimes not even
prohibitive in the cases of purchases in smallthat.But these unfortunate derivatives of social
amounts.Even if there is corruption in such purchasesactivity can be minimized by the adoption of clear
it is bound to cause less damage to the public purseprocurement policies, transparent and public decision
than the costs of the tender which is supposed tomaking processes and the right mix of supervision,
prevent it!So, in most countries, small purchases canauditing and prosecution. Even then the result is
be authorized by government officials - largerbound to be dubious, at best.