| |
| |
|
Politics Information |
|
|
|
Public Procurement and Very Private Benefits
In every national budget, there is a part called "Public Procurement". This is the portion of the budget allocated to purchasing services and goods for the various ministries, authorities and other arms of the executive branch. It was the famous management consultant, Parkinson, who once wrote that government officials are likely to approve a multi-billion dollar nuclear power plant much more speedily that they are likely to authorize a hundred dollar expenditure on a bicycle parking device. This is because everyone came across 100 dollar situations in real life - but precious few had the fortune to expend with billions of USD. This, precisely, is the problem with public procurement: people are too acquainted with the purchased items. They tend to confuse their daily, household-type, decisions with the processes and considerations which should permeate governmental decision making. They label perfectly legitimate decisions as "corrupt" - and totally corrupt procedures as "legal" or merely "legitimate", because this is what was decreed by the statal mechanisms, or because "this is the law". Procurement is divided to defence and non-defence spending. In both these categories - but, especially in the former - there are grave, well founded, concerns that things might not be all what they seem to be. Government - from India's to Sweden's to Belgium's - fell because of procurement scandals which involved bribes paid by manufacturers or service providers either to individual in the service of the state or to political parties. Other, lesser cases, litter the press daily. In the last few years only, the burgeoning defence sector in Israel saw two such big scandals: the developer of Israel's missiles was involved in one (and currently is serving a jail sentence) and Israel's military attache to Washington was implicated - though, never convicted - in yet another. But the picture is not that grim. Most governments in the West succeeded in reigning in and fully controlling this particular budget item. In the USA, this part of the budget remained constant in the last 35(!) years at 20% of the GDP. There are many problems with public procurement. It is an obscure area of state activity, agreed upon in "customized" tenders and in dark rooms through a series of undisclosed agreements. At least, this is the public image of these expenditures. The truth is completely different. True, some ministers use public money to build their private "empires". It could be a private business empire, catering to the financial future of the minister, his cronies and his relatives. These two plagues - cronyism and nepotism - haunt public procurement. The spectre of government official using public money to benefit their political allies or their family members - haunts public imagination and provokes public indignation. Then, there are problems of plain corruption: bribes or commissions paid to decision makers in return for winning tenders or awarding of economic benefits financed by the public money. Again, sometimes these moneys end in secret bank accounts in Switzerland or in Luxembourg. At other times, they finance political activities of political parties. This was rampantly abundant in Italy and has its place in France. The USA, which was considered to be immune from such behaviours - has proven to be less so, lately, with the Bill Clinton alleged election financing transgressions. But, these, with all due respect to "clean hands" operations and principles, are not the main problems of public procurement. The first order problem is the allocation of scarce resources. In other words, prioritizing. The needs are enormous and ever growing. The US government purchases hundreds of thousands of separate items from outside suppliers. Just the list of these goods - not to mention their technical specifications and the documentation which accompanies the transactions - occupies tens of thick volumes. Supercomputers are used to manage all these - and, even so, it is getting way out of hand. How to allocate ever scarcer resources amongst these items is a daunting - close to impossible - task. It also, of course, has a political dimension. A procurement decision reflects a political preference and priority. But the decision itself is not always motivated by rational - let alone noble - arguments. More often, it is the by product and end result of lobbying, political hand bending and extortionist muscle. This raises a lot of hackles among those who feel that were kept out of the pork barrel. They feel underprivileged and discriminated against. They fight back and the whole system finds itself in a quagmire, a nightmare of conflicting interests. Last year, the whole budget in the USA was stuck - not approved by Congress - because of these reactions and counter-reactions. The second problem is the supervision, auditing and control of actual spending. This has two dimensions:
The most widespread method is the public, competitive, tender for the purchases of goods and services. But, this is not as simple as it sounds. Some countries publish international tenders, striving to secure the best quality in the cheapest price - no matter what is its geographical or political source. Other countries are much more protectionist (notably: Japan and France) and they publish only domestic tenders, in most cases. A domestic tender is open only to domestic bidders. Yet other countries limit participation in the tenders on various backgrounds: the size of the competing company, its track record, its ownership structure, its human rights or environmental record and so on. Some countries publish the minutes of the tender committee (which has to explain WHY it selected this or that supplier). Others keep it a closely guarded secret ("to protect commercial interests and secrets"). But all countries state in advance that they have no obligation to accept any kind of offer - even if it is the cheapest. This is a needed provision: the cheapest is not necessarily the best. The cheapest offer could be coming from a very unreliable supplier with a bad past performance or a criminal record or from a supplier who offers goods of shoddy quality. The tendering policies of most of the countries in the world also incorporates a second principle: that of "minimum size". The cost of running a tender is prohibitive in the cases of purchases in small amounts. Even if there is corruption in such purchases it is bound to cause less damage to the public purse than the costs of the tender which is supposed to prevent it! So, in most countries, small purchases can be authorized by government officials - larger amounts go through a tedious, multi-phase tendering process. Public competitive bidding is not corruption-proof: many times officials and bidders collude and conspire to award the contract against bribes and other, noncash, benefits. But we still know of no better way to minimize the effects of human greed. Procurement policies, procedures and tenders are supervised by state auditing authorities. The most famous is, probably, the General Accounting Office, known by its acronym: the GAO. It is an unrelenting, very thorough and dangerous watchdog of the administration. It is considered to be highly effective in reducing procurement - related irregularities and crimes. Another such institutions the Israeli State Reviser. What is common to both these organs of the state is that they have very broad authority. They possess (by law) judicial and criminal prosecution powers and they exercise it without any hesitation. They have the legal obligation to review the operations and financial transactions of all the other organs of the executive branch. Their teams select, each year, the organs to be reviewed and audited. They collect all pertinent documents and correspondence. They cross the information that they receive from elsewhere. They ask very embarrassing questions and they do it under the threat of perjury prosecutions. They summon witnesses and they publish damning reports which, in many cases, lead to criminal prosecutions. Another form of review of public procurement is through powers granted to the legislative arm of the state (Congress, Parliament, Bundestag, or Knesset). In almost every country in the world, the elected body has its own procurement oversight committee. It supervises the expenditures of the executive branch and makes sure that they conform to the budget. The difference between such supervisory, parliamentary, bodies and their executive branch counterparts - is that they feel free to criticize public procurement not only in the context of its adherence to budget constraints or its cleanliness - but also in a political context. In other words, these committees do not limit themselves to asking HOW - but also engage in asking WHY. Why this specific expense in this given time and location - and not that expense, somewhere else or some other time. These elected bodies feel at liberty - and often do - intervene in the very decision making process and in the order of priorities. They have the propensity to alter both quite often. The most famous such committee is, arguably, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is famous because it is non-partisan and technocratic in nature. It is really made of experts which staff its offices. Its apparent - and real - neutrality makes its judgements and recommendations a commandment not to be avoided and, almost universally, to be obeyed. The CBO operates for and on behalf of the American Congress and is, really, the research arm of that venerable parliament. Parallelly, the executive part of the American system - the Administration - has its own guard against waste and worse: the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Both bodies produce learned, thickset, analyses, reports, criticism, opinions and recommendations. Despite quite a prodigious annual output of verbiage - they are so highly regarded, that virtually anything that they say (or write) is minutely analysed and implemented to the last letter with an air of awe. Only a few other parliaments have committees that carry such weight. The Israeli Knesset have the extremely powerful Finance Committee which is in charge of all matters financial, from appropriations to procurement. Another parliament renowned for its tight scrutiny is the French Parliament - though it retains very few real powers. But not all countries chose the option of legislative supervision. Some of them relegated parts or all of these functions to the executive arm. In Japan, the Ministry of Finance still scrutinizes (and has to authorize) the smallest expense, using an army of clerks. These clerks became so powerful that they have the theoretical potential to secure and extort benefits stemming from the very position that they hold. Many of them suspiciously join companies and organizations which they supervised or to which they awarded contracts - immediately after they leave their previous, government, positions. The Ministry of Finance is subject to a major reform in the reform-bent government of Prime Minister Hashimoto. The Japanese establishment finally realized that too much supervision, control, auditing and prosecution powers might be a Pyrrhic victory: it might encourage corruption - rather than discourage it. Britain opted to keep the discretion to use public funds and the clout that comes with it in the hands of the political level. This is a lot like the relationship between the butter and the cat left to guard it. Still, this idiosyncratic British arrangement works surprisingly well. All public procurement and expenditure items are approved by the EDX Committee of the British Cabinet (=inner, influential, circle of government) which is headed by the Ministry of Finance. Even this did not prove enough to restrain the appetites of Ministers, especially as quid pro quo deals quickly developed. So, now the word is that the new Labour Prime Minister will chair it- enabling him to exert his personal authority on matters of public money. Britain, under the previous, Tory, government also pioneered an interesting and controversial incentive system for its public servants as top government officials are euphemistically called there. They receive, added to their salaries, a portion of the savings that they effect in their departmental budgets. This means that they get a small fraction of the end of the fiscal year difference between their budget allowances and what they actually spent. This is very useful in certain segments of government activity - but could prove very problematic in others. Imagine health officials saving on medicines, or others saving on road maintenance or educational consumables. This, naturally, will not do. Needless to say that no country officially approves of the payment of bribes or commission to officials in charge of public spending, however remote the connection is between the payment and the actions. Yet, law aside many countries accept the intertwining of elites - business and political - as a fact of life, albeit a sad one. Many judicial systems in the world even make a difference between a payment which is not connected to an identifiable or discernible benefit and those that are. The latter - and only the latter - are labelled "bribery". Where there is money - there is wrongdoing. Humans are humans - and sometimes not even that. But these unfortunate derivatives of social activity can be minimized by the adoption of clear procurement policies, transparent and public decision making processes and the right mix of supervision, auditing and prosecution. Even then the result is bound to be dubious, at best. About The Author Sam Vaknin is the author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" and "After the Rain - How the West Lost the East". He is a columnist in "Central Europe Review", United Press International (UPI) and ebookweb.org and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. His web site: http://samvak.tripod.com
MORE RESOURCES:
Politics - Google News |
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLES
UAV Materials and Thoughts on New Technologies and Keeping Up With Our Opponents Possible UAV materials are infinite: Foam, Composite, Balsa Wood, Plastic, Synthetic Balloon Material, Aluminum, Titanium, Spider Web Organic Material, etc. I propose some late breaking technology and newer materials, ceramic coatings and or UAVs built from photorefractive composites? Materials such as this:http://www. Sarbanes-Oxley Reality Check on Bureaucracy There is no doubt in hindsight that Sarbanes Oxley was a mistake as we watch the blob of bureaucracy move into the private sector. There is no doubt that Sarbanes Oxley's real costs have been passed onto the consumer and citizen like a giant tax increase of Boston Tea proportions. Eminent Domain Suggested as Cost Saving Measure in DC Washington DC council member David Catania actually suggested that the council should consider claiming eminent domain of certain widely prescribed pharmaceutical formulas in order to help reign in rising drug costs for the city. Catania suggests that the patents should be acquired by the government through the mayor's declaration of a public health emergency and then generic manufacturers would be contacted to produce the drugs for cheaper than they are commercially available. Politicians Will Save Civilization Most politicians are completely out to lunch and totally Machiavellian by nature, they cannot be trusted. We tend to elect the most manipulative politicians to higher offices and condemn the one's who really care. The Power of Media: Russian Perspective Journalism, as it is often said, is the 'fourth branch of power', along with legislative, executive and judiciary, not any less mighty than those three, even if not legally endorsed in the Russian constitution. It is the power of symbolism, and it cannot be escaped, but can only "used" to bring truth, or "abused" to bring propaganda. Congress Considers National Data Privacy Law Legislation was introduced into Congress this week that would establish a national data privacy law. The bill would require businesses to disclose to consumers any breaches that result in the exposure of personal information. The G-8 and Other Figureheads The Presidents Before Washington:From the moment that the first Declaration of Independence in Mecklenburg, North Carolina took place (if not before) there were people leading the cause of American Independence. But the Presidents of the Continental Congress starting with Peyton Randolph should be considered as key figures in the history of this faade called America. If the Water is Polluted, Ever Wonder What is in it? I would like to discuss a few issues we have been reading in the mass media about the kinds of stuff in our rivers. Forget about the DDT and all the pesticides from Industry, we need to look at our own lives and in our own mirror. Droughts, Dirty Water and Disease When we go through periods of droughts we also have other problems, which are increased. Things such as West Nile Virus, Bark Beetles, Disease Epidemics, Med Fly and realize these problems which occur during certain weather periods are compounded when the cycles get out of control. PA Congressional Pay Hike Raises Eyebrows While many Pennsylvanians are struggling to figure out how they can pay their real estate taxes before the end-of-the-year deadline, the PA congress not only votes an extra $11,403 onto their base pay, but those on committee chairs receive an additional $4,050. Speaking in terms of percentage, the pay hikes ranged from 16% - 34%, while most of their constituents are lucky to see a 3% raise. Affirmative Inaction One of Abraham Lincoln's claims to fame is the fact that he is best known for abolishing slavery. While he may have felt some personal satisfaction from liberating the Negroes from their bondage, Economy was the main reason why he made his emancipation proclamation. Business: "Where Is America Headed To?", New York Millionaire Wonders Hello! Happy new year. May you live a long healthy life and prosper. Common Sense vs. Common Senseless - How Thomas Paine Can Be Applied To Modern Day; Part Two The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. Did 9-11 Change Everything for the Business Community For the business community 9-11 changed everything. In our company, we are in the cleaning business and after 9-11 we saw 62. All There is, is dust in the wind; Dust Particulate Traveling The Globe Dust from Deserts and Particulate ControlThe greatest contributor to particulate matter, which effects human health comes from the World's Deserts. In the Western US we have huge deserts. How Senator Sarbaines and Oxley Destroyed America You have probably heard of the Sarbaines Oxley Law (SOX) on corporate governance to make corporations totally transparent. And the voters and investors wanted this law so they could know which companies to invest in so they could make 20% per year on their money, which they damn well feel entitled to. Iran is Escalating the Conflict Iran has threatened to raise America's fuel prices again. They have said they will most likely comply with the nuclear weapons productions, but are quite spiteful with regards to a different attack on American Soil. Ethanol, Water, Pollution, North Korea and Free Trade Ethanol is a great way to produce fuel, great fuel to trade and It makes sense to grow your fuel. Only a few problems; it takes water, processing makes CO2 and how much can we get for it when we export it?Ethanol Plants are popping up across America and turn corn into fuel, but corn takes water to grow and states like Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri are in drought. The Lemon Dance: Why Government Doesn't Work Former Senator, Daniel Moynihan, accurately summed up the situation when he posited that,"[t]he single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because! it's so rare." In the case of politicians the public is protected from ineptitude and apathy through term limits. Are We Serious About Fuel Alternatives? As you can see from some of our previous articles, government agencies predict about 40 years of petroleum still remains. As usage climbs, the amount of time remaining may shrink even more.
|
| home | site map |
| © 2006 |
