Public Procurement and Very Private Benefits

In every national budget, there is a part called "Publictedious, multi-phase tendering process. Public
Procurement". This is the portion of the budgetcompetitive bidding is not corruption-proof: many times
allocated to purchasing services and goods for theofficials and bidders collude and conspire to award the
various ministries, authorities and other arms of thecontract against bribes and other, noncash, benefits.
executive branch. It was the famous managementBut we still know of no better way to minimize the
consultant, Parkinson, who once wrote thateffects of human greed.Procurement policies,
government officials are likely to approve a multi-billionprocedures and tenders are supervised by state
dollar nuclear power plant much more speedily thatauditing authorities. The most famous is, probably, the
they are likely to authorize a hundred dollar expenditureGeneral Accounting Office, known by its acronym: the
on a bicycle parking device. This is because everyoneGAO.It is an unrelenting, very thorough and dangerous
came across 100 dollar situations in real life - butwatchdog of the administration. It is considered to be
precious few had the fortune to expend with billions ofhighly effective in reducing procurement - related
USD.This, precisely, is the problem with publicirregularities and crimes. Another such institutions the
procurement: people are too acquainted with theIsraeli State Reviser. What is common to both these
purchased items. They tend to confuse their daily,organs of the state is that they have very broad
household-type, decisions with the processes andauthority. They possess (by law) judicial and criminal
considerations which should permeate governmentalprosecution powers and they exercise it without any
decision making. They label perfectly legitimatehesitation. They have the legal obligation to review the
decisions as "corrupt" - and totally corrupt proceduresoperations and financial transactions of all the other
as "legal" or merely "legitimate", because this is whatorgans of the executive branch. Their teams select,
was decreed by the statal mechanisms, or becauseeach year, the organs to be reviewed and audited.
"this is the law".Procurement is divided to defence andThey collect all pertinent documents and
non-defence spending. In both these categories - but,correspondence. They cross the information that they
especially in the former - there are grave, well founded,receive from elsewhere. They ask very embarrassing
concerns that things might not be all what they seemquestions and they do it under the threat of perjury
to be.Government - from India's to Sweden's toprosecutions. They summon witnesses and they
Belgium's - fell because of procurement scandalspublish damning reports which, in many cases, lead to
which involved bribes paid by manufacturers orcriminal prosecutions.Another form of review of public
service providers either to individual in the service ofprocurement is through powers granted to the
the state or to political parties. Other, lesser cases, litterlegislative arm of the state (Congress, Parliament,
the press daily. In the last few years only, theBundestag, or Knesset). In almost every country in the
burgeoning defence sector in Israel saw two such bigworld, the elected body has its own procurement
scandals: the developer of Israel's missiles wasoversight committee. It supervises the expenditures of
involved in one (and currently is serving a jail sentence)the executive branch and makes sure that they
and Israel's military attache to Washington wasconform to the budget. The difference between such
implicated - though, never convicted - in yet another.Butsupervisory, parliamentary, bodies and their executive
the picture is not that grim. Most governments in thebranch counterparts - is that they feel free to criticize
West 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 - but
budget remained constant in the last 35(!) years atalso in a political context. In other words, these
20% of the GDP.There are many problems with publiccommittees do not limit themselves to asking HOW -
procurement. It is an obscure area of state activity,but also engage in asking WHY. Why this specific
agreed upon in "customized" tenders and in darkexpense in this given time and location - and not that
rooms through a series of undisclosed agreements. Atexpense, somewhere else or some other time. These
least, this is the public image of these expenditures.Theelected bodies feel at liberty - and often do - intervene
truth is completely different.True, some ministers usein the very decision making process and in the order of
public money to build their private "empires". It could bepriorities. They have the propensity to alter both quite
a private business empire, catering to the financialoften.The most famous such committee is, arguably,
future of the minister, his cronies and his relatives.the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is famous
These two plagues - cronyism and nepotism - hauntbecause it is non-partisan and technocratic in nature. It
public procurement. The spectre of government officialis really made of experts which staff its offices.Its
using public money to benefit their political allies or theirapparent - and real - neutrality makes its judgements
family members - haunts public imagination andand recommendations a commandment not to be
provokes public indignation.Then, there are problems ofavoided and, almost universally, to be obeyed. The
plain corruption: bribes or commissions paid to decisionCBO operates for and on behalf of the American
makers in return for winning tenders or awarding ofCongress and is, really, the research arm of that
economic benefits financed by the public money.venerable parliament. Parallelly, the executive part of
Again, sometimes these moneys end in secret bankthe American system - the Administration - has its
accounts in Switzerland or in Luxembourg. At otherown guard against waste and worse: the Office of
times, they finance political activities of political parties.Management and Budget (OMB).Both bodies produce
This was rampantly abundant in Italy and has its placelearned, thickset, analyses, reports, criticism, opinions
in France. The USA, which was considered to beand recommendations. Despite quite a prodigious
immune from such behaviours - has proven to be lessannual output of verbiage - they are so highly
so, lately, with the Bill Clinton alleged election financingregarded, that virtually anything that they say (or write)
transgressions.But, these, with all due respect to "cleanis minutely analysed and implemented to the last letter
hands" operations and principles, are not the mainwith an air of awe.Only a few other parliaments have
problems of public procurement.The first order problemcommittees that carry such weight. The Israeli Knesset
is the allocation of scarce resources. In other words,have the extremely powerful Finance Committee
prioritizing. The needs are enormous and ever growing.which is in charge of all matters financial, from
The US government purchases hundreds ofappropriations to procurement. Another parliament
thousands of separate items from outside suppliers.renowned for its tight scrutiny is the French Parliament
Just the list of these goods - not to mention their- though it retains very few real powers.But not all
technical specifications and the documentation whichcountries chose the option of legislative supervision.
accompanies the transactions - occupies tens of thickSome of them relegated parts or all of these functions
volumes. Supercomputers are used to manage allto the executive arm.In Japan, the Ministry of Finance
these - and, even so, it is getting way out of hand.still scrutinizes (and has to authorize) the smallest
How to allocate ever scarcer resources amongstexpense, using an army of clerks. These clerks
these items is a daunting - close to impossible - task. Itbecame so powerful that they have the theoretical
also, of course, has a political dimension. Apotential to secure and extort benefits stemming from
procurement decision reflects a political preferencethe very position that they hold. Many of them
and priority. But the decision itself is not alwayssuspiciously join companies and organizations which
motivated by rational - let alone noble - arguments.they supervised or to which they awarded contracts -
More often, it is the by product and end result ofimmediately after they leave their previous,
lobbying, political hand bending and extortionist muscle.government, positions. The Ministry of Finance is
This raises a lot of hackles among those who feel thatsubject to a major reform in the reform-bent
were kept out of the pork barrel. They feelgovernment of Prime Minister Hashimoto. The
underprivileged and discriminated against. They fightJapanese establishment finally realized that too much
back and the whole system finds itself in a quagmire, asupervision, control, auditing and prosecution powers
nightmare of conflicting interests. Last year, the wholemight be a Pyrrhic victory: it might encourage
budget in the USA was stuck - not approved bycorruption - rather than discourage it.Britain opted to
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. This
supervision, auditing and control of actual spending. Thisis a lot like the relationship between the butter and the
has two dimensions:How to make sure that thecat left to guard it. Still, this idiosyncratic British
expenditures match and do not exceed the budgetaryarrangement works surprisingly well. All public
items. In some countries, this is a mere ritual formalityprocurement and expenditure items are approved by
and government departments are positively expectedthe EDX Committee of the British Cabinet (=inner,
to overstep their procurement budgets. In others, thisinfluential, circle of government) which is headed by the
constitutes a criminal offence.How to prevent theMinistry of Finance. Even this did not prove enough to
criminally corrupt activities that we have describedrestrain the appetites of Ministers, especially as quid
above - or even the non criminal incompetent actspro quo deals quickly developed. So, now the word is
which government officials are prone to do.The mostthat the new Labour Prime Minister will chair it- enabling
widespread method is the public, competitive, tenderhim to exert his personal authority on matters of public
for the purchases of goods and services.But, this is notmoney.Britain, under the previous, Tory, government
as simple as it sounds.Some countries publishalso pioneered an interesting and controversial
international tenders, striving to secure the best qualityincentive system for its public servants as top
in the cheapest price - no matter what is itsgovernment officials are euphemistically called there.
geographical or political source. Other countries areThey receive, added to their salaries, a portion of the
much more protectionist (notably: Japan and France)savings that they effect in their departmental budgets.
and they publish only domestic tenders, in most cases.This means that they get a small fraction of the end
A domestic tender is open only to domestic bidders.of the fiscal year difference between their budget
Yet other countries limit participation in the tenders onallowances and what they actually spent. This is very
various backgrounds: the size of the competinguseful in certain segments of government activity - but
company, its track record, its ownership structure, itscould prove very problematic in others. Imagine health
human rights or environmental record and so on. Someofficials saving on medicines, or others saving on road
countries publish the minutes of the tender committeemaintenance or educational consumables. This,
(which has to explain WHY it selected this or thatnaturally, will not do.Needless to say that no country
supplier). Others keep it a closely guarded secret ("toofficially approves of the payment of bribes or
protect commercial interests and secrets").But allcommission to officials in charge of public spending,
countries state in advance that they have no obligationhowever remote the connection is between the
to accept any kind of offer - even if it is the cheapest.payment and the actions.Yet, law aside many
This is a needed provision: the cheapest is notcountries accept the intertwining of elites - business
necessarily the best. The cheapest offer could beand political - as a fact of life, albeit a sad one. Many
coming from a very unreliable supplier with a bad pastjudicial systems in the world even make a difference
performance or a criminal record or from a supplierbetween a payment which is not connected to an
who offers goods of shoddy quality.The tenderingidentifiable or discernible benefit and those that are.
policies of most of the countries in the world alsoThe latter - and only the latter - are labelled
incorporates a second principle: that of "minimum size"."bribery".Where there is money - there is wrongdoing.
The cost of running a tender is prohibitive in the casesHumans are humans - and sometimes not even
of purchases in small amounts.Even if there isthat.But these unfortunate derivatives of social activity
corruption in such purchases it is bound to cause lesscan be minimized by the adoption of clear
damage to the public purse than the costs of theprocurement policies, transparent and public decision
tender which is supposed to prevent it!So, in mostmaking processes and the right mix of supervision,
countries, small purchases can be authorized byauditing and prosecution. Even then the result is bound
government officials - larger amounts go through ato be dubious, at best.