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

Everything you need to know about the 18th International Anti-Corruption Conference (#18IACC)

The #18IACC will take place from 22-24 October in Copenhagen, Denmark under the theme Together for Development, Peace and Security: Now is the Time to Act. Get the latest info and updates here!

Risky business: Europe’s golden visa programmes

Are EU Member States accepting too much risk in their investor migration schemes?

Future Against Corruption Award 2018

TI is calling on young people across the globe to join the anti-corruption movement. People between the age of 18 and 35 are invited to submit a short video clip presenting their idea on new ways to fight corruption. Three finalists will be invited to Berlin during the International Anti-Corruption Day festivities to be awarded with the Future Against Corruption Award. Apply today!

The Azerbaijani Laundromat one year on: has justice been served?

In September last year, a massive leak of bank records from 2012 to 2014 showed that the ruling elite of Azerbaijan ran a $3 billion slush fund and an international money laundering scheme. One year on, has enough been done to hold those involved to account?

Right to information: knowledge is power

The right to information is vital for preventing corruption. When citizens can access key facts and data from governments, it is more difficult to hide abuses of power and other illegal activities - governments can be held accountable.

Paradise lost among Maldives dodgy land deals

Should tourists run for cover as a storm of corruption allegations sweeps across the Maldives?

Foreign bribery rages unchecked in over half of global trade

There are many losers and few winners when companies bribe foreign public officials to win lucrative overseas contracts. In prioritising profits over principles, governments in most major exporting countries fail to prosecute companies flouting laws criminalising foreign bribery.

Social Media

Follow us on Social Media