Measuring procurement performance in Europe
| Published date | 05 March 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-03-2018-001 |
| Date | 05 March 2018 |
| Pages | 2-13 |
| Author | Anthony Flynn |
| Subject Matter | Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management,Government,Economics,Public finance/economics,Taxation/public revenue |
Measuring procurement
performance in Europe
Anthony Flynn
Cardiff Business School, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The European Commission has begun to measure procurement performance in countries
belonging to the European EconomicArea (EEA). Performance is understood in terms of practices designed
to maximize value formoney. The purpose of this paper is to report on the performance measurement system
currently in use and what the European Commission’s own data tell us about contemporary procurement
practicesin EEA countries.
Design/methodology/approach –Secondary data released by the European Commission is used to
examine procurementperformance across 30 EEA countries.
Findings –The best performing countries are from Scandinaviaand the Benelux, along with Ireland, UK
and Malta. Average performing countries includeFrance and Germany. Below average performers include
Italy, Spainand the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Originality/value –The paper highlights significant performance gaps in public procurement between
EEA countries.
Keywords Investment, Procurement, Performance, Public sector, Value for money, EEA
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Value for money (VfM) has become something of a mantra in public procurement. In the
academic literature, scholars have devoted considerable attention to debating various VfM
issues and what they meanfor both theory and practice (Dimitri, 2013;Erridgeand McIlroy,
2002;Loader, 2007;Thai, 2001). In the public domain, lawmakers are forever propounding
on the need for public sector organizations to secure betterVfM in the procurement of goods
and services. This is not surprising given the amounts of money at stake. Across
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, public procurement
accounts for, on average, 12.8 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and 29 per cent of
total government expenditure (OECD, 2013). Thus, anything that can be done to improve
VfM in procurement is likely to havean appreciable impact on the state of a country’s public
finances and even freeup funds for investment or expenditure elsewhere.
Europe is by no means immune to these trends. In an era of fiscal retrenchment and
constrained public finances, there is pressure on public contracting authorities to identify
the most economically advantageous option that the supply market has to offer. The most
recent legislative reforminitiative of the European Commission proves the point. It has VfM
as one of its two priorities, the other being the simplification of the tendering process
(European Commission, 2016). Aiming to maximize VfM not only supports sound public
finances but also is consistent with having a competitive, dynamic and diverse supply
marketplace (Caldwellet al., 2005;European Commission, 2008).
But, how do we know if public contracting authorities are adhering to best practice
procurement and if VfM really is being achieved? And can we measure and compare the
relative performance of countriesin their use of VfM procurement practices? The European
JOPP
18,1
2
Journalof Public Procurement
Vol.18 No. 1, 2018
pp. 2-13
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1535-0118
DOI 10.1108/JOPP-03-2018-001
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1535-0118.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial