Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches - Department for ...
Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches - Department for ...
Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches - Department for ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Public</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>: <strong>Using</strong> <strong>Market</strong>-<strong>Based</strong> <strong>Approaches</strong><br />
Risk-sharing<br />
When the government has less in<strong>for</strong>mation than the supplier, it may be <strong>for</strong>ced<br />
to trade-off risk allocation and per<strong>for</strong>mance incentives. Principal-agent theory<br />
tells us that the principal (the government) is often unable to distinguish<br />
between the effects of an agent’s (the service provider’s) ef<strong>for</strong>t and random<br />
events on output. Transferring the risk of an unfavourable outcome to the private<br />
sector requires that the private-sector firm be compensated <strong>for</strong> this burden,<br />
leading to higher procurement costs. However, if the government accepts the full<br />
burden of risk, the private sector provider may be faced with inappropriate<br />
incentives.<br />
Different <strong>for</strong>ms of contract strike a different balance in this trade-off. Fixed-price<br />
contracts provide strong incentives <strong>for</strong> productive efficiency, as an agent is<br />
rewarded <strong>for</strong> any cost-reducing ef<strong>for</strong>t he makes (Laffont and Tirole, 1993).<br />
However, they suffer from weak quality incentives as the agent can increase<br />
profit by reducing quality, particularly where quality is difficult to measure or<br />
observe (Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991); Hart, Shleifer and Vishney (1997)). 203<br />
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts offer weak incentives <strong>for</strong> productive efficiency, and<br />
may encourage ‘gold plating’ in which the supplier produces the highest<br />
possible quality as it is compensated <strong>for</strong> any ef<strong>for</strong>t it makes. Incentive contracts<br />
involve a fixed-fee component as well as a pre-determined fraction of costs<br />
incurred. For incentive contracts to achieve their desired outcomes, there must<br />
be both accountability and en<strong>for</strong>ceability (see Stiglitz, 2000).<br />
Winner’s curse<br />
Winner’s curse arises in common-value auctions, in which competing bidders<br />
have different in<strong>for</strong>mation about the value of the tender. The winner’s curse<br />
effect refers to the adverse selection problem that arises because the winner<br />
tends to be the bidder with the most optimistic valuation of the tender. As the<br />
probability of over-estimating the tender value increases with the number of<br />
competitors, bidders are aware of this and internalise the winner’s curse<br />
problem by bidding more cautiously. This leads to the perverse result that<br />
increasing the number of competitors can actually increase procurement costs.<br />
The more in<strong>for</strong>mation a bidder has, the smaller the chance of falling prey to<br />
winner’s curse and the more aggressively bidders will there<strong>for</strong>e bid. Choosing<br />
an auction design to maximise in<strong>for</strong>mation, such as the open auction, helps<br />
mitigate this problem as it reduces the probability that a bidder will have overestimated<br />
the value of the good. 204 However, it should be noted that increasing<br />
the availability of in<strong>for</strong>mation may substantially increase the costs of the<br />
tendering process.<br />
203 Holmstrom, B. and Milgrom, P. (1991) ‘Multi-Task Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership<br />
and Job Design.’ Journal of Law, Economics and Organisation 7.<br />
204 Salmon, T. 2004’Preventing Collusion’ Chapter 3 in Auctioning <strong>Public</strong> Assets: Analysis and Alternatives. Ed. M.<br />
Janssen. Cambridge University Press..<br />
182