employee from 01.01.2020 until now
St Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
employee
Saint Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
UDC 338.246.2
Introduction. The significant volume of budget funds passing through the contractual system renders the sphere of public procurement sensitive to corruption risks. Corruption links do not always manifest as direct violations of the law and may form through the selection of procurement procedures, preparation of documentation, establishment of requirements for participants, determination of the initial price, and the frequency of interaction between the purchaser and individual suppliers. Consequently, analysing the factors and mechanisms by which the procurement procedure can be used to restrict competition and entrench the advantageous position of a particular participant becomes especially important. Methods. A structured meta-analytic approach was employed in the study to summarise empirical findings presented in foreign research on corruption risks and links in the realm of public procurement. The unit of analysis was an individual empirical effect, including the factor, mechanism, procurement outcome, evaluation method, and quantitative metric. Statistical pooling of coefficients was not conducted; instead, substantive comparison of effects with subsequent clustering was used. Results. Five groups of factors and mechanisms were identified: procedural discretion and distorted supplier selection; threshold manipulation of the procurement procedure; persistence of administrative links and the structure of procurement interaction; transparency and digitalisation as limitations on corruption links; control and audit as ambiguous institutional factors. It was established that an expansion of the purchaser's discretion could be associated with an increase in contract price, a decrease in the winner's productivity, a higher likelihood of a related firm winning, and reduced transparency of execution. Threshold regulation can create incentives to adjust the expected cost of procurement to a less transparent procedure. Transparency and digitalisation only limit corruption risks if the information is structured, accessible for searching, and suitable for external control. Conclusions. A multi-level model of corruption links in public procurement has been developed, wherein institutional conditions and procedural opportunities transition into mechanisms that restrict competition, distort winner selection, and entrench stable procurement interactions. The results obtained allow for viewing corruption in procurement not merely as a collection of individual offences but as an institutionally conditioned process arising from the use of formally permissible elements of the contractual system to restrict access for participants and provide advantages to specific suppliers.
public procurement, corruption, factors, determinants, economic security
1. Bal'sevich A. A., Pivovarova S. G., Podkolzina E. A. Rol' prozrachnosti informacii v gosudarstvennyh zakupkah: primer rossiyskih regionov // Zhurnal Novoy ekonomicheskoy associacii. 2012. № 3 (15). S. 82–112.
2. Kolesnichenko E. A., Burmistrova A. A., Petrov D. I., Savvateeva O. V. Osobennosti proyavleniya tenevyh otnosheniy v sfere gosudarstvennyh zakupok // Vestnik Volzhskogo universiteta imeni V. N. Tatischeva. 2020. T. 2, № 1. S. 114–121.
3. Menyaylo L. N. Protivodeystvie korrupcii pri osuschestvlenii zakupok tovarov, rabot i uslug dlya obespecheniya gosudarstvennyh i municipal'nyh nuzhd // Problemy pravoohranitel'noy deyatel'nosti. 2024. № 1. S. 37–43.
4. Hodasevich O. N., Shalamova E. Yu. Korrupciya v sfere gosudarstvennyh zakupok // Nauchno‑metodicheskiy elektronnyy zhurnal «Koncept». 2018. № 3. S. 89–94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24422/MCITO.2018.3.11511.
5. Chupanova A. Ch., Gasanalieva A. Sh. Korrupciya v sfere gosudarstvennyh (municipal'nyh) zakupok i puti ee preodoleniya // Yuridicheskiy vestnik Dagestanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2016. T. 17, № 1. S. 21–26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21779/2224‑0241‑2016‑20‑4‑46‑50.
6. Akomah, Benjamin B., and G. Nani. 2016. “Determining the Causes of Corruption in Public Procurement in Ghana.” African Journal of Applied Research 3, no. 3 (March):82–93.
7. Balsevich, Anna, and Elena Podkolzina. 2014. “Indicators of Corruption in Public Procurement: The Example of Russian Regions : Basic Research Program : Working Papers : Series: Economics : WP BRP 76/EC/2014.” 25. [Moscow] : National Research University Higher School of Economics. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2530518.
8. Baltrunaite, Audinga [et al.]. 2021. “Discretion and Supplier Selection in Public Procurement.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 37, no. 1 (December):134–166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewaa009.
9. Bekele, Olani [et al.]. 2020. “Determinants of Public Procurement Corruption in Gedeo Zone.” Research Journal of Finance and Accounting 11, no. 5 (January):12–25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7176/RJFA/11-5-02.
10. Broms, Rasmus, and Carl Dahlström, Mihaly Fazekas. 2019. “Political Competition and Public Procurement Outcomes.” Comparative Political Studies 52 (9):001041401983072. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019830723.
11. Coviello, Decio, and Stefano Gagliarducci. 2017. “Tenure in Office and Public Procurement.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 9, no. 3 (August):59–105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20150426.
12. Gerardino, Maria P., and Stephan Litschig, Dina Pomeranz. 2024. “Distortion by Audit: Evidence from Public Procurement.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 16, no. 4 (October):71–108. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20220512.
13. Israel, Baraka K. 2018. “Determinants of Corrupt Practices in Public Procurement: Experience from Moshi District Council in Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania.” In: Regional Conference on “Corruption and the Challenge of Economic Transformation in Southern Africa” 21. Gaborone, Botswana.
14. Israilova, Aiganysh, and Karel Tomšík. 2021. “Methodological Analysis of Financial Corruption Typology Schemes in Public Procurement Area.” Open Journal of Social Sciences 12, no. 9 (January):306–316. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.912021.
15. Lewis-Faupel, Sean [et al.]. 2016. “Can Electronic Procurement Improve Infrastructure Provision? Evidence from Public Works in India and Indonesia.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 8, no. 3 (August):258–283. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20140258.
16. Magakwe, Jack. 2022. “The Root Causes of Corruption in Public Procurement: A Global Perspective.” In: Fahed Sreih J. (ed.) Corruption – New Insights. London, United Kingdom : IntechOpen. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105941.
17. Palguta, Jan. 2013. “Nonlinear Incentive Schemes and Corruption in Public Procurement: Evidence from the Czech Republic.” In: CERGE EI Working Paper wp483 51. Prague : The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education – Economics Institute. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2257392.
18. Popescu, Ada Iuliana. 2014. “Public Procurement Corruption in the European Union.” Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 1/2014 (September):7–16.
19. Schapper, P. R., and J. N. Veiga Malta, D. L. Gilbert. 2006. “An Analytical Framework for the Management and Reform of Public Procurement.” Journal of Public Procurement 6, no. 1 (March):1–26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP 06 01 02 2006 B001.
20. Szucs, Ferenc. 2019. “Discretion and Corruption in Public Procurement.” In: 23rd Annual Conference of the Society for Institutional & Organizational Economics, (June):1–40.
