The implications of a muddled definition of public procurement
| Date | 01 March 2009 |
| Published date | 01 March 2009 |
| Pages | 326-370 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-09-03-04-2009-B002 |
| Author | Eric Prier,Clifford P. McCue |
| Subject Matter | Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management,Government,Economics,Public Finance/economics,Texation/public revenue |
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT, VOLUME 9, ISSUES 3 & 4, 326-370 2009
THE IMPLICATIONS OF A MUDDLED DEFINITION
OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT
Eric Prier and Clifford P. McCue*
ABSTRACT. At all levels of government, inconsistencies exist regarding the
terminology and the body of knowledge used to understand public
procurement. Perspectives on what public procurement is, or should be,
ranges from routine ordering to sophisticated analysis of government
spending. Definitional ambiguities have hampered attempts to define the
field and unify its focus. This exploratory article examines the implications of
the muddled nature of public procurement that has led to debate and
uncertainty about the proper role of public procurement practitioners. To
address these limitations, three dimensions of all public procurement
systems are identified, and a general definition is proposed for describing
the field and its institutionalized practices.
INTRODUCTION
Is public procurement a profession? To a number of practitioners
and academics, the question remains unanswered. There can be little
doubt, however, by both practitioners and academics alike, that
government is likely to be more effective if public procurement
practitioners engage in their job activities based upon a common
public procurement body of knowledge (PPBOK). As such, delineating
-------------------
* Eric Prier, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor, Department of Political
Science, Florida Atlantic University. His research interests are in good
governance, public policy and public procurement. Clifford McCue, Ph.D., is
an Associate Professor, School of Public Administration, and Director, Public
Procurement Research center, Florida Atlantic University. His research
interests are in government finance and public procurement. The order of
authorship was determined by coin toss.
Copyright © 2009 by PrAcademics Press
THE IMPLICATIONS OF A MUDDLED DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 327
the boundaries and institutionalized activities of public procurement
is important because substantively defining what these employees do
in their bureaus can substantially help government allocate public
resources more effectively. Further, identifying a common term to
both describe and prescribe what these individuals do, why they do it,
and what additional benefits are derived from their doing their jobs
professionally is necessary if they are to better articulate what value
they add to governance.
This article seeks to define public procurement based upon an
examination of the empirical practices of procurement practitioners
and the environment within which they work. The structure of the
current article is as follows. The first section offers a general
definition of public procurement and explains why this definition is
important for observers of this central aspect of policymaking. The
second part offers a systems model of public procurement that
conceptualizes three dimensions found in all procurement in the
public space: the legal authority for action, the institutional and
organizational environment in which practitioners operate, and the
activities and actions that comprise the public procurement sphere.
The third, fourth, and fifth segments of the article expand on these
dimensions while the sixth section addresses materials management
and surplus property. The seventh part discusses the implications
and conclusions of the article.
WHAT IS PUBLIC PROCUREMENT?
The dominant professional associations for buyers who work in
government organizations are the National Institute of Governmental
Purchasing (NIGP), the National Contract Management Association
(NCMA), and the National Association of State Procurement Officials
(NASPO). Although the members of these organizations tend to do
similar tasks in their respective workplaces, even these organizations
charged with promoting professionalism in the buying community
cannot reach a consensus as to what those common activities are
within public procurement! Further, the titles of various periodicals
used within the field likewise tend to reflect the diversity of terms
328 PRIER & MCCUE
used for the various aspects of buying done by governmental
organizations. For example, the American Bar Association issues the
Public Contract Law Journal, NCMA prints Contract Management, the
Department of Defense publishes Acquisition Review Quarterly, a
popular web site used by practitioners is called “Where in Federal
Contracting?”, and some international academic and legal journals
use the term “public procurement” (the Journal of Public Procurement
and the Public Procurement Law Review). All of these examples
highlight that there is little agreement on what bounds the profession
of government procurement, if it is a profession at all.
Without an agreed-upon body of knowledge, the development of
education and training programs is less likely to advance the field of
government procurement. According to Gargan (1993), a body of
knowledge is based on a conceptual framework that is systematized
around a central theme and formulated through the process of
definition, classification, and analysis with reference to the discovery
of general concepts, theories, laws and principles. However in public
procurement, before classification schema can be used to determine
standards within the field, an acceptable definition that is based on
its activities and behaviors of practitioners is required. Is procurement
merely buying? Is contracting synonymous with procurement? Is
auditing and materials management part of the procurement regime?
This article addresses these questions by outlining the common
boundaries of the field, and explaining why the definition of public
procurement given here is consistent with empirical practice.
The findings contained herein hint that a deeper understanding of
public procurement is needed – one that explicates its scope (legal
mandate), location (organizational matrix), and proper role
(procurement activities) within the political system. Consistent with
this, the current article is intended to address Fred Thompson’s
(1993, p. 314) suggestion that students of public administration (and
presumably practitioners of public procurement) look beyond
“superficial institutional dissimilarities to their common structural
elements.” Indeed, it is assumed that alternative institutional
arrangements can be made to achieve different management and
control exigencies, but that is not the focus here. Instead, the authors
To continue reading
Request your trial