公私伙伴关系对竞争的体制影响:主动提出的提案项目

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Public Procurement Pub Date : 2022-11-28 DOI:10.1108/jopp-10-2021-0066
W. Moon, Sukmo Ku, Hyejung Jo, Jin-ye Sim
{"title":"公私伙伴关系对竞争的体制影响:主动提出的提案项目","authors":"W. Moon, Sukmo Ku, Hyejung Jo, Jin-ye Sim","doi":"10.1108/jopp-10-2021-0066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nIn many countries that allow unsolicited proposals (USPs) for public–private partnership (PPP) projects, incentives are awarded to the initial proponent of the USP projects during the tendering process as rewards for initially making a proposal. Because of such a reward system, including the bonus system, USPs are commonly known to involve fewer tender participants. This paper aims to investigate the empirical relationship between the number of tender participants and the institutional factors of PPPs. Specifically, two institutional factors are examined: the use of USPs and the bonus system for initial USP proponents.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe ordinary least squares (OLS) and Poisson regression analysis is used in this study to analyze PPP data in South Korea.\n\n\nFindings\nThis paper demonstrated that USP projects have fewer bidders participating in tenders than solicited projects. Meanwhile, the analysis showed that the bonus system as another component of the institutional framework did not account for the number of bidders in tendering. In the analysis by three different facility types (“Roads,” “Environmental facilities” and “Other” types) of whether the bonus system discouraged participation in the bidding, the authors found heterogeneous responses among the types. For “Roads” and “Other” types of projects, the existence of the bonus system reduced the number of bidders for USP projects, while for “Environmental facilities,” there was no negative relationship between bonus points and the number of bidders. In the analysis of whether there were fewer bidders when no bonus points were awarded, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of bidders for “Roads” and “Environmental facilities.”\n\n\nSocial implications\nThis study shows the possibility that other institutional factors apart from bonus points affect competition. The characteristic factors of USPs can affect the decision to participate in the tender from the perspective of potential bidders.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nRecent studies on USPs have mainly focused on the strategies that ensure the effective management of USPs for PPP implementation. However, quantitative effects of USPs on the tendering process have not yet been addressed. The quantitative effect refers to something that may be estimated by quantity or that relates to the describing or measuring of quantity, such as the present attempt to account for the number of bidders.\n","PeriodicalId":45136,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Procurement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The institutional effects of public–private partnerships on competition: unsolicited proposal projects\",\"authors\":\"W. Moon, Sukmo Ku, Hyejung Jo, Jin-ye Sim\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jopp-10-2021-0066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nIn many countries that allow unsolicited proposals (USPs) for public–private partnership (PPP) projects, incentives are awarded to the initial proponent of the USP projects during the tendering process as rewards for initially making a proposal. Because of such a reward system, including the bonus system, USPs are commonly known to involve fewer tender participants. This paper aims to investigate the empirical relationship between the number of tender participants and the institutional factors of PPPs. Specifically, two institutional factors are examined: the use of USPs and the bonus system for initial USP proponents.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe ordinary least squares (OLS) and Poisson regression analysis is used in this study to analyze PPP data in South Korea.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis paper demonstrated that USP projects have fewer bidders participating in tenders than solicited projects. Meanwhile, the analysis showed that the bonus system as another component of the institutional framework did not account for the number of bidders in tendering. In the analysis by three different facility types (“Roads,” “Environmental facilities” and “Other” types) of whether the bonus system discouraged participation in the bidding, the authors found heterogeneous responses among the types. For “Roads” and “Other” types of projects, the existence of the bonus system reduced the number of bidders for USP projects, while for “Environmental facilities,” there was no negative relationship between bonus points and the number of bidders. In the analysis of whether there were fewer bidders when no bonus points were awarded, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of bidders for “Roads” and “Environmental facilities.”\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThis study shows the possibility that other institutional factors apart from bonus points affect competition. The characteristic factors of USPs can affect the decision to participate in the tender from the perspective of potential bidders.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nRecent studies on USPs have mainly focused on the strategies that ensure the effective management of USPs for PPP implementation. However, quantitative effects of USPs on the tendering process have not yet been addressed. The quantitative effect refers to something that may be estimated by quantity or that relates to the describing or measuring of quantity, such as the present attempt to account for the number of bidders.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Procurement\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Procurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jopp-10-2021-0066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Procurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jopp-10-2021-0066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在许多允许公私合作(PPP)项目采用主动建议书(USPs)的国家,在招标过程中,对USP项目的最初支持者给予奖励,作为最初提出建议的奖励。由于这样的奖励制度,包括奖金制度,USPs通常涉及较少的投标参与者。本文旨在探讨ppp项目投标参与方数量与制度因素之间的实证关系。具体来说,研究了两个制度因素:USP的使用和初始USP支持者的奖金制度。设计/方法/方法本研究采用普通最小二乘(OLS)和泊松回归分析来分析韩国的PPP数据。研究发现:与招标项目相比,USP项目参与招标的投标人较少。与此同时,分析表明,作为制度框架的另一个组成部分的奖金制度没有考虑到投标中投标人的数量。通过三种不同的设施类型(“道路”、“环境设施”和“其他”类型)分析奖金制度是否阻碍了投标的参与,作者发现不同类型之间的反应存在差异。在“道路”和“其他”项目中,奖励制度的存在减少了USP项目的投标人数量,而在“环境设施”项目中,奖励积分与投标人数量之间没有负相关关系。在分析不给予加分时是否有较少的投标人时,“道路”和“环境设施”的投标人数量没有统计学上的显著差异。社会影响:这项研究表明,除了加分之外,其他制度因素也可能影响竞争。从潜在投标人的角度来看,USPs的特征因素会影响其参与投标的决定。最近对USPs的研究主要集中在确保有效管理USPs以实施PPP的策略上。然而,USPs对招标过程的定量影响尚未得到解决。数量效应是指可以通过数量来估计或与描述或测量数量有关的东西,例如目前试图说明投标人的数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The institutional effects of public–private partnerships on competition: unsolicited proposal projects
Purpose In many countries that allow unsolicited proposals (USPs) for public–private partnership (PPP) projects, incentives are awarded to the initial proponent of the USP projects during the tendering process as rewards for initially making a proposal. Because of such a reward system, including the bonus system, USPs are commonly known to involve fewer tender participants. This paper aims to investigate the empirical relationship between the number of tender participants and the institutional factors of PPPs. Specifically, two institutional factors are examined: the use of USPs and the bonus system for initial USP proponents. Design/methodology/approach The ordinary least squares (OLS) and Poisson regression analysis is used in this study to analyze PPP data in South Korea. Findings This paper demonstrated that USP projects have fewer bidders participating in tenders than solicited projects. Meanwhile, the analysis showed that the bonus system as another component of the institutional framework did not account for the number of bidders in tendering. In the analysis by three different facility types (“Roads,” “Environmental facilities” and “Other” types) of whether the bonus system discouraged participation in the bidding, the authors found heterogeneous responses among the types. For “Roads” and “Other” types of projects, the existence of the bonus system reduced the number of bidders for USP projects, while for “Environmental facilities,” there was no negative relationship between bonus points and the number of bidders. In the analysis of whether there were fewer bidders when no bonus points were awarded, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of bidders for “Roads” and “Environmental facilities.” Social implications This study shows the possibility that other institutional factors apart from bonus points affect competition. The characteristic factors of USPs can affect the decision to participate in the tender from the perspective of potential bidders. Originality/value Recent studies on USPs have mainly focused on the strategies that ensure the effective management of USPs for PPP implementation. However, quantitative effects of USPs on the tendering process have not yet been addressed. The quantitative effect refers to something that may be estimated by quantity or that relates to the describing or measuring of quantity, such as the present attempt to account for the number of bidders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Procurement
Journal of Public Procurement PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Procurement (JOPP) seeks to further the understanding of public procurement. JOPP publishes original, high-quality research that explores the theories and practices of public procurement. The journal ensures that high-quality research is collected and disseminated widely to both academics and practitioners, and provides a forum for debate. It covers all subjects relating to the purchase of goods, services and works by public organizations at a local, regional, national and international level. JOPP is multi-disciplinary, with a broad approach towards methods and styles of research as well as the level of issues addressed. The Journal welcomes the submission of papers from researchers internationally. The journal welcomes research papers, narrative essays, exemplar cases, forums, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Approaching transcendence: a conceptual discussion on procurement fraud, education, professionalism maturity, ethics and implications Procurement practices and operational performance: a study of linear and curvilinear relationships in a developing economy The predicting role of sustainable supplier selection on lead-time performance in public procurement: relational capability as a moderator Challenges of black construction professionals with Black Economic Empowerment as a procurement policy in South Africa Streamlining professionalisation in public procurement: Romanian competency frameworks as a case study (Part B)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1