Crime and Public Procurement, Evidence from Municipalities

Author/s Giuseppe Albanese, Federico Antellini Russo, Roberto Zampino
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2016/2 Language Italian
Pages 37 P. 131-167 File size 369 KB
DOI 10.3280/EP2016-002005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The paper analyzes the link between the centralized public procurement of goods and services by municipalities and the context in which these administrations operate. While taking into account a number of factors that can lead to a greater or lesser use of the Italian central purchasing body (Consip), the study focuses on the link between that choice and the local crime rate. The empirical analysis shows that, in low-crime areas only, an increase in crime is positively correlated with the frequency whereby municipalities choose suppliers selected by a third party in order to attempt to limit the risk of inefficiency (passive waste). The relationship reverses in high-crime areas, reflecting a growing inclination to maintain autonomous control over purchasing, potentially related to the possible extraction of rents (active waste).

Keywords: Crime, fraud and corruption, efficiency, public procurement, local public finance.

Jel codes: D73, E24, H57, H72, H83.

  1. Albanese G. (2010). Social Infrastructure and Economic Growth in Italian Regions. Rivista economica del Mezzogiorno, 1-2: 179-210. DOI: 10.1432/32462
  2. Albanese G. e Barone G. (2014). L’origine del capitale sociale. In: Barone G., de Blasio G. e Sestito P. (a cura di). Capitale sociale, economia, politica economica. Banca d’Italia: Collana Atti Seminari e Convegni n. 17.
  3. Albano G.L. e Antellini Russo F. (2009). Problemi e prospettive del Public Procurement in Italia tra esigenze della pubblica amministrazione e obiettivi di politica economica. Economia Italiana, 3: 809-830.
  4. Albano G.L., Antellini Russo F. e Zampino R. (2014). Il Public Procurement come stimolo alle PMI: il caso del Mercato Elettronico della Pubblica Amministrazione italiana. Rivista di Politica Economica, VII-IX: 169-209.
  5. Antellini Russo F. e Zampino R. (2013). Le acquisizioni di beni e servizi sotto soglia attraverso il Mercato Elettronico della Pubblica Amministrazione. Quaderni Consip N. I/2013.
  6. Bandiera O., Prat A. and Valletti T. (2009). Active and Passive Waste in Government Spending: Evidence from a Policy Experiment. The American Economic Review, 99(4): 1278-1308.
  7. Barone G. and Narciso G. (2015). Organized crime and business subsidies: Where does the money go? Journal of Urban Economics, 86: 98-110.
  8. Büchner S., Freytag A., Gonzàles L.G. and Güth W. (2008). Bribery and public procurement: an experimental study. Public Choice, 137: 103-117.
  9. Burguet R. and Che Y.-K. (2004). Competitive Procurement with Corruption. The RAND Journal of Economics, 35, 50-68. DOI: 10.2307/1593729
  10. Calderoni F. (2011). Where is the mafia in Italy? Measuring the presence of the mafia across Italian provinces. Global Crime, 12: 41-69.
  11. Calderoni F. e Caneppele S. (2009). La geografia criminale degli appalti. Le infiltrazioni della criminalità organizzata negli apparati pubblici nel Sud Italia. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  12. Celentani M. and Ganuza J.-J. (2002). Corruption and Competition in Procurement. European Economic Review, 46: 1273-1303. DOI: 10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00147-7
  13. Ciaccio G. (2009). La criminalità organizzata nelle regioni meridionali: effetti sullo sviluppo economico e sul costo dei servizi pubblici locali. Economia Pubblica, 1-2: 91-114. DOI: 10.3280/EP2009-001004
  14. Cioffi M. e Tommasino P. (2014). Il capitale sociale e le politiche pubbliche. In: Barone, G., de Blasio G. e Sestito P. (a cura di). Capitale sociale, economia, politica economica. Banca d’Italia: Collana Atti Seminari e Convegni n. 17.
  15. Coviello D. and Gagliarducci S. (2010). Building Political Collusion: Evidence from Procurement Auctions. IZA Discussion Paper, n. 4939.
  16. Daniele V. and Marani U. (2011). Organized crime, the quality of local institutions and FDI in Italy: A panel data analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 27: 132-142.
  17. Di Liberto A. and Sideri M. (2015). Past dominations, current institutions and the Italian regional economic performance. European Journal of Political Economy, 38: 12-41.
  18. Dimitri N., Dini F. and Piga G. (2006). When Should Procurement Be Centralized? In: Dimitri N., Piga G. and Spagnolo G. (eds.), Handbook of Procurement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Emerson P. (2006). Corruption, competition and democracy. Journal of Development Economics, 81: 193-212.
  20. Golden M. and Picci L. (2005). Proposal for a new measure of corruption, illustrated with Italian data. Economics & Politics, 17: 37-75.
  21. Gourieroux C., Monfort A. and Trognon A. (1984). Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: applications to Poisson models. Econometrica, 52: 701-720. DOI: 10.2307/1913472
  22. Grembi V., Nannicini T. and Troiano U. (2012). Policy Responses to Fiscal Restraints: A Difference-in-Discontinuities Design. IZA Discussion Paper N. 6952.
  23. Kelman S. (1990). Procurement and Public Management: The Fear of Discretion and the Quality of Government Performance. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press.
  24. Laffont J.-J., Tirole J. (1991). Auction Design and Favoritism. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 9: 9-42. DOI: 10.1016/0167-7187(91)90003-4
  25. Lasagni A., Nifo A. and Vecchione G. (2015). Firm Productivity and Institutional Quality. Evidence from Italian Industry. Journal of Regional Science, 55: 774-800.
  26. Limão N. and Venables A.J. (2001). Infrastructure, Geographical Disadvantage, Transport Costs and Trade. World Bank Economic Review, 15: 451-479.
  27. Moretti L. (2013). Local financial development, socio-institutional environment, and firm productivity: Evidence from Italy. European Journal of Political Economy, 35: 38-51.
  28. Nardo M., Saisana M., Saltelli A., Tarantola S., Hoffman A. and Giovannini E. (2005). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD statistics working paper n. 3.
  29. Nifo A. and Vecchione G. (2014). Do Institutions Play a Role in Skilled Migration? The Case of Italy. Regional Studies, 48: 1628-1649.
  30. OECD (2010). Competition Policy Roundtables. Collusion and Corruption in Public Procurement.
  31. OECD (2013). Working Group on Bribery. Annual Report 2013.
  32. PwC EU Services, Ecorys (2013). Public Procurement: Costs We Pay for Corruption. Identifying and Reducing Corruption in Public Procurement in the EU.
  33. Santos Silva J.M. and Tenreyro S. (2011). Further simulation evidence on the performance of the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator. Economics Letters, 112: 220-222.
  34. Soudry O. (2007). A Principal-Agent Analysis of Accountability in Public Procurement. In: Piga P. and Thai K.V. (eds.). Advancing Public Procurement: Practices, Innovation and Knowledge-sharing. Boca Raton, FL: Academics Press.
  35. Svensson J. (2015). Eight Questions about Corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15: 19-42. DOI: 10.1257/089533005774357860
  36. Visco I. (2014), Contrasto all’economia criminale: precondizione per la crescita economica. Milano: Convegno Fondazione CIRGIS.
  37. World Economic Forum (2013). Global Competitiveness Reports.

Giuseppe Albanese, Federico Antellini Russo, Roberto Zampino, Criminalità e scelte degli amministratori locali in tema di procedure di acquisto in "ECONOMIA PUBBLICA " 2/2016, pp 131-167, DOI: 10.3280/EP2016-002005