Affirmative Action Subcontracting Regulations in Dynamic Procurement Auctions

Rosa, Benjamin (2019): Affirmative Action Subcontracting Regulations in Dynamic Procurement Auctions.

Abstract

I study affirmative action subcontracting regulations in a model where governments use auctions to repeatedly procure goods and services at the lowest possible price. Through using disadvantaged subcontractors, prime contractors build relationships over time, resulting in lower subcontracting costs in future periods. I find that regulation in the form of a minimum subcontracting requirement expands bidder asymmetries, favoring prime contractors with stronger relationships over those with weaker ones. Simulations show that the manner in which relationships evolve determines not only the utilization of disadvantaged subcontractors but also the procurement costs attained under affirmative action.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Dynamic auctions; affirmative action; procurement
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C73 - Stochastic and Dynamic Games ; Evolutionary Games ; Repeated Games; D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design > D44 - Auctions

References

Banerjee, A. and E. Duflo (2000). Reputation Effects and the Limits of Contracting: A Study of the Indian Software Industry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(3), 989–1017.

Chen, J., U. Doraszelski, and J. E. Harrington (2009). Avoiding Market Dominance: Product Compatibility in Markets with Network Effects. RAND Journal of Economics 40(3), 455–485.

De Silva, D. G., T. Dunne, G. Kosmopoulou, and C. Lamarche (2012). Disadvantaged business enterprise goals in government procurement contracting: An analysis of bidding behavior and costs. International Journal of Industrial Organization 30(4), 377–388.

Gil, R. and J. Marion (2013). Self-enforcing agreements and relational contracting: Evidence from California highway procurement. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 29(2), 239–277.

González, M., B. Arrunada, and A. Fernández (2000). Causes of Subcontracting: Evidence from Panel Data on Construction Firms. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 42, 167–187.

Groeger, J. R. (2014). A Study of participation in dynamic auctions. International Economic Review 55(4), 1129–1154.

Group, T. I. (2016). MnDOT DBE and OJT Program Needs Assessment. Technical report, MnDOT.

Holzer, H. and D. Neumark (2000). Assessing Affirmative Action. Journal of Economic Literature XXXVIII(September), 483–568.

Hubbard, T. P. and H. J. Paarsch (2009). Investigating bid preferences at low-price, sealed-bid auctions with endogenous participation. International Journal of Industrial Organization 27(1), 1–14.

Hubbard, T. P. and H. J. Paarsch (2014). On the Numerical Solution of Equilibria in Auction Models with Asymmetries within the Private-Values Paradigm. Handbook of Computational Economics 3(291), 37–115.

IowaDOT (2018). Iowa Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan. Technical report, Iowa Department of Transportation.

Jeziorski, P. and E. Krasnokutskaya (2016). Dynamic auction environment with subcontracting. RAND Journal of Economics 47(4), 751–791.

Jofre-Bonet, M. and M. Pesendorfer (2003). Estimation of a Dynamic Auction Game. Econometrica 71(5), 1443–1489.

Judd, K. L. (1998). Numerical Methods in Economics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kaplan, T. R. and S. Zamir (2012). Asymmetric first-price auctions with uniform distributions: Analytic solutions to the general case. Economic Theory 50(2), 269–302.

Kellogg, R. (2011). Learning by drilling: Interfirm learning and relationship persistence in the Texas oilpatch. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4), 1961–2004.

Krishna, V. (2002). Auction Theory. San Diego: Academic Press.

Marion, J. (2017). Affirmative Action Exemptions and Capacity Constrained Firms. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 9(3), 377–407.

Marion, J. (2009). How Costly Is Affirmative Action? Government Contracting and California’s Proposition 209. Review of Economics and Statistics 91(3), 503–522.

Maskin, E. and J. Riley (2000). Asymmetric Auctions. The Review of Economic Studies 67(3), 413–438.

OECD (2017). Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Rosa, B. V. (2018). Subcontracting Requirements and the Cost of Government Procurement. Working paper, 1–48.

Saini, V. (2012). Endogenous asymmetry in a dynamic procurement auction. RAND Journal of Economics 43(4), 726–760.