Defence spending: how to reduce corruption risks

Defence spending: how to reduce corruption risks

When a company lands a contract with a government for supplying goods or services without competing against bidders, there’s a real risk of corruption and overpricing. The company – as the sole provider – may feel that it can charge what it wants without worrying about the competition, weakening the incentive to be efficient and provide a good deal.

These kinds of deals, which fall into the category of single source or non-competitive procurement, are prevalent in the defence sector – and were on the rise between 2008 and 2011 in the US and UK, according to a new report by Transparency International UK’s Defence and Security Programme (TI-DSP) and the International Defense Acquisition Resource Management Programme.

The award of single source contracts in the defence sector has attracted growing critical attention in the last few years. In an era of austerity and public spending cuts, many have turned their attention to how governments can do more with less.

Sometimes there is justification for a Ministry of Defence to sign a single source contract: if an item is under copyright, for example, or only one company has the technology to meet a specific military need. But there have been too many examples when single sourcing has been a factor contributing to corruption at worst or simply a bad deal for taxpayers.

TI-DSP’s report calls for a greater emphasis on open competition and greater transparency in procurement.

Limiting single source contracts, and being transparent about such contracts when they’re required, will help ensure that taxpayer funds are put to best use. At this time of economic austerity, limiting the risk of misspending, waste and corruption is vital.”

– Mark Pyman, TI-DSP Director

Single sourcing: a multi-country analysis

TI-DSP contacted 45 countries to request data on their single source contract awards in compiling the report. Of those 45, only seven had publicly available data on single source defence procurement, or were willing to release it.

The countries that responded were Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the UK and the US. Strikingly, the European Defence Agency, which publicly commits to transparency, declined to share data, stating that it needed to have the permission of the countries involved.

Research showed that almost half of the defence contracts awarded in Poland, the UK and the US were single-source contracts. Since a similar study was released in 2008, the percentage of single source procurement in the US and UK has increased substantially. In Poland and Bulgaria, however, it has decreased, possibly because of reforms that focused on improving competition and introduced e-procurement.

The graph below shows the reported levels of awarding single source contracts from 2009 to 2011:

Data for the report was only available up to 2011 given the length of time it took for the research to be completed. Despite this, findings remain relevant today as practices have not changed.

 

Here’s how to tackle the problem

  1. Defence ministers and defence procurement chiefs should publish the number of single-source contracts awarded and the justifications for awarding them.
  2. National legislators and legislative defence committees should demand open reporting from the Ministry of Defence and regularly request data on single-source percentages.
  3. Civil society should demand defence procurement information from the Ministry of Defence and monitor defence policies and practices.
  4. The European Defence Agency should embrace its commitment to transparency, and member states should grant organisations like the academy permission to publish their competitive procurement levels.

To find out more, view the report here.

For any press enquiries please contact press@transparency.org

Latest

Support Transparency International

Three priorities at the Open Government Partnership summit

This week, the Open Government Partnership is holding its 5th global summit in Tbilisi, Georgia. Transparency International is there in force, pushing for action in three key areas.

Civil society’s crucial role in sustainable development

Key players in the development community are meeting in New York for the main United Nations conference on sustainable development, the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF). Transparency International is there to highlight how corruption obstructs development and report on how effectively countries are tackling this issue.

Comment gagner la lutte contre la corruption en Afrique

Aujourd’hui est la Journée africaine de lutte contre la corruption – une occasion opportunité pour reconnaitre le progrès dans la lutte contre la corruption en Afrique et le travail significatif qui reste encore à accomplir.

How to win the fight against corruption in Africa

African Anti-Corruption Day is an important opportunity to recognise both the progress made in the fight against corruption in Africa and the significant work still left to do.

Increasing accountability and safeguarding billions in climate finance

In December 2015, governments from around the world came together to sign the Paris Agreement, agreeing to tackle climate change and keep global warming under two degrees centigrade. They committed to spend US$100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and protect themselves against the potentially devastating effects of climate change.

After Gürtel, what next for Spain’s struggle with political corruption?

At the start of June, the Spanish parliament voted to oust Prime Minister Rajoy after his political party was embroiled in the biggest corruption scandal in Spain’s democratic history. At this critical juncture in Spain’s struggle with political corruption, Transparency International urges all parties to join forces against impunity and support anti-corruption efforts in public life.

Risk of impunity increases with outcome of Portuguese-Angolan corruption trial

A verdict last week by the Lisbon Court of Appeals in the trial of former Angolan vice president Manuel Vicente has disappointed hopes for a triumph of legal due process over politics and impunity. It also has worrying implications for the independence of Portugal’s judiciary.

Social Media

Follow us on Social Media